Oy 
: 


SN 
Ss 


NAAN 
AS 
oe 
at 


SSA 

Ss 

WRENS 
NS re 


SS SS Sa 
SES x Se Sy SNe . S * a = Y NSN » y . 
ES Le SAS SNS . a » SN Y WA SS 
RAY LOK LAN SS \ SS 


SERS AW 
SAN . SAN ae SE . S 
SS : 


Wes 


SNS 


SS 


BSN 
AS 


\ 
SIN 
SRS 


SS N ~ TN RON 
SONATA NO SO SAS 
SS NS SSN 


. \ SS 
IK 


WX OO 
MIG \ \\ i \ ‘ 


NEN 
S 


AX SAI MN NON 
si SeRRNENARNNNN SAN 


\ 
\ 


PP Raa sc ie BN olaiad 
j age ‘ : Simin ayy 


PRINCETON, N. J: 


.B72 1882 
Charles Loring, 


Gestavcnristy 


eee x 
Speci eR 


i 


” 
A 
: 
a 
ee 
7 
4 


(ee 


CANAD MOTT URES IONE. 


_ Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 


$ 


q Princeton Theological Seminary Libre ry 


GL SHEP CHRIST TS: 


OR 


eel to Oh ven OR ELUM ANE “PROGRESS 
UNDER CHRISTIANITY. 


BY 
CHARLES LORING BRACE, 
AUTHOR OF 
“Races of the Old World,” ‘Home Life in Germany and flungary,”” 


“ Norse Folk,” “* Dangerous Classes of New York,” etc. 


Hew Pork: 
eet ACR M Siar N Gee S.C Ne 
714 BROADWAY. 
MDCCCLXXXII. 
[All rights reserved . | 


CopyRIGHT, 1882, 


By CHARLES LORING BRACE. 


Dalke Eta a es Bie 


THE writer of this work has been engaged for some 
thirty years in a practical application of the principles of 
Christianity, with the view of curing certain great social 
evils in the City of New York. He has been able to test 
its power on a large scale, in diminishing poverty, crime 
and misery. He has also had a humble share in, and 
been a witness of, the great effort of the United States 
to remove its tremendous evil—Slavery ; and he knows 
how far Christian ideas were at the foundation of this 
great reform, and how inuch they stimulated and sup- 
ported the long struggle. 

For many years studies in the laws and history of the 
Roman Period and the Middle Ages have shown him the 
traces (often almost obliterated) of the silent, profound 
working of the great reforming Power of the world. He 
has also been engaged in examining and presenting in 
public writings, the influence of the Christian Faith in 
the more modern period, on International Law, Arbitra- 
tion, and the relations of nations. | 

It has seemed to him that to write a condensed history 
of the progress of the humane ideas, practices, and rules 


of action taught or encouraged by this Religion, would be 
Vv 


vi PRETACE, 


a useful thing—especially as making them a more dis- 
tinct possession and code of the civilized world, and as 
forming an indirect argument (not less powerful for being 
indirect) for the truth of this Faith. Yet in considering 
this subject, one must not confound Christianity and the 
Church. Whoever believes he can construct a kind of 
“Divine epic” from the history of the organized Church, 
either voluntarily deceives himself, or follows the will o’ 
wisp light of a false sentiment. 

There are certain practices, principles and ideals—now 
the richest inheritance of the race—that have been either 
implanted or stimulated or supported by Christianity. 

They are such as these: regard for the personality of 
the weakest and poorest ; respect for woman; the absolute 
duty of each member of the fortunate classes to raise 
up the unfortunate; humanity to the child, the prisoner, 
the stranger, the needy, and even the brute; unceasing 
opposition to all forms of cruelty, oppression and slavery ; 
‘the duty of personal purity and the sacredness of mar- 
riage; the necessity of temperance; the obligation of a 
more equitable division of the profits of labour, and of 
greater co-operation between employers and employed ; 
the right of every human being to have the utmost op- 
portunity of developing his faculties, and of all persons 
to enjoy equal political and social privileges; the prin- 
ciple that the injury of one nation is the injury of all, 
and the expediency and duty of unrestricted trade and 
intercourse between all countries ; and, finally and _princi- 
pally, a profound opposition to war, a determination to . 
limit its evils when existing, and to prevent its arising by 
means of international Arbitration. 


PREFACE. vii 


Ideals, principles and practices such as these are among 
the best achievements of Christianity. 

It has seemed to the writer not impossible, that great 
numbers of the vast English-speaking race in Great 
Britain, America, and Australia, and from the cultured 
peoples of the Continent, might more and more unite in 
a kind of moral Confederation throughout the world to 
Support and advance and spread these great and humane 
ideas. To have given even the faintest impulse towards 
this consummation and this progress, would be alone not 
to have lived in vain. 


CHARLES LORING BRACE. 


CHESKNOLL, 
DOBB'S, PERRY, N« Y., 
Nov. 9th, 1882. 


DLAs 


PRIN 6k Toy % 


BEG, DEC 1889 


G > ‘S)2\) ¥y we “) 
pL Uy wey BY « 
UD ee AT A ek he 
YUP \ ENA 


© ON AEN NS EES: 


CHAPTER I.—INTRODUCTION i n nt ~ r ; ; 


Plan of the work.—An Investigation of the Influence of 
Christianity on the Practices, Customs, Laws and Morals, 
(1) Of the Roman Period ; (2) The Middle Ages. ; (3) 
The Modern Period. 


I. 
ROMAN PERIOD. 


CHAPTER II.—PATERNAL POWER ; : > : : “ 


Instances of Paternal Tyranny in Roman History.— Re- 
forms in Constantine’s and Justinian’s Legislation under 
Christian Influences.— Succession of Property.—Changes 
through Stoical Influences.— Reforms in Justinian’s Code. 
—The Beginnings of Modern Reforms. 


CHAPTER III.—THE POSITION OF WOMAN UNDER ROMAN 
AW ss : : = x c : : ? y : 


Tutelage of Woman.—Free Marriage.—Reforms under Jus- 
tinian’s Code. —Divorce.—Instances in the Roman Period, 
—Reforms brought about by Christianity in Constantine’s 
and Justinian’s Legislation,—Concubinage.—Improve- 
ments under Christianity. 


CHAPTER IV.—PERSONAL PURITY AND MARRIAGE s s 


Christ’s Influence on Masculine Purity, on Marriage.—His 
Teachings as to Separation.—Celibacy.—Effect of Christ- 
ianity on Position of Woman,—Unnatural Vices.--Plato’s 
Principles as to their Abolition..-Opposition of Early 
Christians to them.-—Victory of Christian Principles. 


1X 


PAGE 


19 


29 


x CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER V.—SLAVERY  .- : : : . ‘ : A 
The Silence of Christ.—Explanation.—The Slave in the 
Church.—Stoics and Slavery. —Number of Roman Slaves. 
Reforms under the Stoics——Christian Influence on 
Legislation. — Emancipation as a Religious Duty.— 
Humanity Towards Slaves.—Justinian’s Reform.—Hu- 
manity under Christian Influence.—Reforms under other 
Emperors.-—Gradual Emancipation. 


CHAPTER VI.—SLAVES IN CRUEL AND LICENTIOUS SPORTS 


Bloody Sports.—Reforms by Constantine.—Human Sacri- 
fices.—Licentious Shows.—Feelings of the Early Chris- 
tians. ~Reform in Roman Laws.—Licentiousness Re- 


strained. —RansomingCaptives.—Rehabilitation of Labour. 


—Serfdom.—Reforms under Religious Teaching. 


CHAPTER VII.—EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN : : F : 
Allusions to it in Latin Literature—Mode of Exposure.— 
Stoical Protests.—The Early Fathers’ Denunciations.— 
Constantine’s and Valentinian’s Legislation.—The Coun- 
cils.—Justinian’s Code.—Treatment of Foundlings by the 
Church.—Orphan Asylums.—Charities for Children. 


CHAPTER VIIJ. -HUMANITY IN ROMAN LAW : 


Humane Legislation of Constantine-—-Sunday Laws.—» 


Prison Reform.—Disfiguring the Face Forbidden.—- 
Kindly Feeling in Roman Law.— Opposition to War by 
Early Christians.—Instances.—Burial Inscriptions.— Pre- 
paration for Arbitration. 


CHAPTER I[X.—DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY . ; , : 


Christ’s Teachings Tending to more Equitable Distribution. 
—Charity.— Roman Pauperism.— Roman Charities.— 
Bequests.—Col/egia. — Christian Charity.— Refuges for 
Orphans.—Strangers’ Rests.—Hospitals.—The Code.— 
Christ's Teachings Opposed to Pauperism.—Excessive 
Almsgiving and Monasticism not an Effect of Christian- 

~ ity.—The Problem not Solved by the Christian Religion, 
but its Truths lead towards Equal Distribution. 


CHAPTER X.—RESUME OF REFORMS IN ROMAN PERIOD J 


Christianity Influenced Patria Potestas and Succession of 
Property ; Diminished Unnatural Vices ; Taught Purity ; 
Put an end to Exposure of Children; Founded Charities 


PAGE 


61 


72 


84 


93 


106 


ht fons 
ox 
- 


CONTENTS. x1 
PAGE 
and Taught more Equitable Distribution of Wealth ; 
Checked Licentious and Cruel Sports, and caused H umane 
Legislation; Mitigated and Undermined Slavery and 
Serfdom ; Elevated Woman and Marriage.—Need of 
Fresh Races for the True Work of Religion.—A fforded by 
the Keltic and German Tribes, 


Il. 
MIDDLE AGES. 


CHAPTER XI.—POSITION OF WOMAN UNDER THE GERMAN 
TRIBES : : : : ; : ; : on OR? 


German Chastity.—Tutelage of Woman.—Purchase of Wife. 
—Instances. — Scandinavian Customs. — Subjection of 
Woman.—Wife under Power of Husband in German Law. 
—Position of Woman having Stamp of Barbarism ; de- 
scended into English Common Law.—Free Marriage,— 
Christianity, strove to Elevate Woman and Strengthen 
Marriage; Changed Purchase-money _ into Dower ; 
Lessened Tutelage.—The Dower — Change of Tutelage.— 
Religion opposed German Prejudice that Bodily 
Strength was a Condition of Civil Capacity.— Inferiority 
of Woman continued in Common Law.—Sir Thomas 
Smith’s Statements.—Gains of Christianity. 


CHAPTER XIJ.—PERSONAL FEUDS AND PRIVATE Wars ek oy 


Feuds Universal in Barbaric Society—Money-Fines in Place 
of Revenge stimulated by Religion.—Feuds checked in 
Holy Days and Places.—Instance from old Russian Code. 
—Law and Penalty substituted for Private Revenge, 
under Influence of Christian Faith. 


CHAPTER XIIJ.—PRIVATE WAR AND PEACE. OF ¢ GoD\-— 
ARBITRATION . : : : 7 s : 3 Tend 


Forms of Declaring Private War.—lInstances.—The Desola- 
tion of Germany and France-—The Peace of God.— 
Crusade of Peace in France.—Efforts of Religious Men. 
—Pledge of Peace.—Peace Associations.—Councils.— 
Efforts of Popes.—A Messenger of Peace.—Truce of God. 
—Peace in Germany.—Leagues of the Rhine.—Applica- 
tion of ARBITRATION.—Forms.--Stimulated by Religious 
Sentiment.—Instances.--End of Diffidation.—Abolition 
of Private War in Spain, Italy, and Iceland. 


xii CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XIV.—WAGER OF BATTLE AND ORDEAL : 

Judicial Duel Among the Northern Tribes.—English Prac- 
tice. Forms Used.—Opposition of the Spirit of Christi- 
anity.—The Councils and Popes.--First Forbidden in 
Iceland after its Conversion.—Its Abolition, Slow.— 
Existed in England till the Nineteenth Century.—Ordeal 
first Opposed by Church, then Accepted and Used.— 
Spirit of Religion Opposed it. 


CHAPTER XV.—TORTURE . . : ° : ° : 

Implanted by Roman Law.—Early Church Opposed, then 

Used it.—Description of Tortures.—The Strappado.— 

Torture in England.—Opposition of Church.—Subsequent 

Acceptance.—Spirit of Religion Struggled against it.— 

Not Abolished in Parts of Europe till Nineteenth Cen- 
tury.—Recent Abolition in Japan. 


CHAPTER XVI.—THE STRANGERS’ RIGHTS . “ - - 


Teutonic Hostility to Strangers.—Instances.—Droit @au- 
haine in France.—Abolished in 1790.—Other Inequali- 
ties later.—The Teutonic Legislation shows the Influence 
of Christianity. i 


CHAPTER XVII.—THE WRECKERS’ RIGHT, AND PIRACY . 


All Teutonic Codes urge Humanity to the Shipwrecked on 
Religious Grounds —Instances.—Judgments of the ‘ea. 
—Councils.—Humane Legislation.—Treaties.—Piracy.— 
A Form of Private War. 


CHAPTER XVIII.—CHARLEMAGNE’S CAPITULARIES r : 


Teaching of Morals on Religious Grounds.— Commands 
against Feud, Oppression, and Perjury.—In favour of 
Marriage, and against Divorce and Unnatural Vice.— 
Injunctions against Oppression of the Stranger and the 
Poor.—Laws soon swept away, but showing Influence of 
this Faith. 


CHAPTER XIX.—ANGLO-SAXON LAW : . ‘ ; : 


Its Spirit Manifestly Affected by Christianity —Contrast 
to other Codes.—Laws of Old English Kings.—King 
Wihtraed.—Alfred’s Dooms—Moral ‘Teachings.—Sun- 
day Laws.~Humanity to Shipwrecked.—False Sweating. 
—King Ethelred’s Dooms.— Religious Laws. — King 


PAGE 


160. 


178 


190 


197 


202 


206 


CONLTAWLIS., xiii 
PAGE 
Canute. — Saxon Piety. — Feuds. — Ancient Laws, — 
Alfred’s Injunctions.—All show the Beginning of History 
of Religious Forces in England. 


CHAPTER XX.—EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES , se Wy 


Christianity Favourable to Intellectual Advance.—Early 
Efforts of the Church. Encouraging Learning.—Early 
Christian Schools.—Councils.—Letter of Charlemagne. 
—Instruction of Theodolfus.—Copying Manuscripts.— 


Thomas a Kempis.—The Pope’s Efforts, — Christian 
Truth Opens Mind of Man to Truth, 


CHAPTER XXI.—SERFDOM AND SLAVERY. IN THE MIDDLE 
AGES e e e e e e e e e e e 224 


The Process by which Serfdom Arose.—Christian Influence © 
on Slavery.—Slavery in the Middle Ages.—Acts of Coun- 
cils Favourable to Slaves—Sunday Laws.—Religious 
Element in Emancipationn—Forms of Manumission.— 
Muratori and Marculfus.—Peasants’ Revolts Under the 
Liberal Teaching of Christianity—Their Objects.— 
Effects on Villainage.-—Emancipation Gradual.—Free- 
dom of Serfs by Bologna.—Slave Trade.--Emancipation 
in Germany.—Abolition in Scandinavia a Direct Effect 
of Religion English Slavery Causes Selling Children. — 
Number of Slaves in England —Religious Influence in 
Emancipation.— Christian Brotherhood.—Gradual Eman- 
cipation.— Forms.—Slave Trade Forbidden.—Slaves after 
the Norman Conquest.— Religious Forces Causing Eman- 
cipation.—Sir Thomas Smith’s Testimony.—Serfdom Dis- 
appeared in Reign of Charles I. 


CHAPTER XXII.—CHIVALRY . ‘ ° . ; wonotn 


Ideal of Chivalry.—Original.—Forms and Oaths Religious. — 
Virtues Taught Corresponded to Christian.-Froissart.— 
Humanity. — Courtesy.—Pity. — Purity. — Brotherhood.— 
Devotion to Woman.—The Ideal an Effect of Chris- 
tianity on the German Temperament.—Its Defects and 
Vices.—Uncertain how far Chivalry was a Reality.—The 
Chivalric Character Endures under Religious Influences. 


CHAPTER XXIIJ.—RESUME OF REFORMS IN THE MIDDLE 
AGES . : : : : ; ; : : : ey a | 

(1) Value Attached by Christianity to Marriage, and New 

Position of Woman.—(2) Restraint of Feud and Blood 


Xiv 


CONTENTS. 


Revenge.—(3) Checking Private War by Peace of God.— 
(4) Urging Arbitration.—(5) Opposing Judicial Duel and 
Ordeal. — (6) Restraining ‘Torture. —(7) Commanding 
Humanity to the Stranger and Shipwrecked.—(8) Power 
of Religion over Codes of Law.—(g) Its Influence on 
Education.—(1o) Gradual Effect on Slavery and Serf- 
dom.—(11) Founding Charities —(12) Influence on the 
Chivalric Ideals.—Reasons of its Want of Full Success. 


ELT 


MODERN PERIOD. 


CHAPTER XXIV.—THE POSITION OF WOMAN UNDER 


MODERN INFLUENCES. . A Z : ; : 


Position of Woman since Christianity a Composite One.— 


Christian Idea Entire Equality of Man and Woman.— 
English Common Law Inherits Teutonic Prejudice of 
Measuring Civil Rights by Physical Power.—The Wife’s 
Legal Existence Suspended.—Coverture-—Woman Under 
Common Law.—Equity Courts.—American Legislation. 
—Reforms in New York.—Position of the Mother.—Pro- 
tection to the Young Girl.—Partnership in Property.— 
Female Suffrage—Woman in the United States.—In 
Europe.—Future of Woman under Agnosticism. 


CHAPTER XXV.—DIVORCE “fe 5 : i . 5 . 


Christian View.—Roman Law.—-Churchly Doctrines.— 


Views of Reformers.--European Tendencies.—United 
States Law.—Views of Judges.—Laws in New York.— 
License of Divorce.—Change of Opinion in the United 
States.— Effects of Free Divorce in New York.—Future 
Effects in America.—General Happiness of Marriage in 
the United States.—Concubinage.—Humane Progress. 


CHAPTER XXVI.—DEGRADATION OF WOMAN : 


Apparent Failure of Christianity—Reforms Begun.—Mas- 


culine Purity.—Efforts for Children,—Effects of Religion. 
— Hope for the Future. 


CHAPTER XXVII.—INTERNATIONAL LAW.—ARBITRATION . 


The Expense and Curse of War.—International Law among 


the Greeks ; the Romans ; in the Middle Ages.— Cruelties 


PAGE 


283 


300 


315 


CONTENTS. 


and Barbarism in War.—Treatment of Prisoners ; of 
Ambassadors.—Grotius’ Views.—Claims of Christian Na- 
tions on Heathen Territory.— Privateering.—Franklin. -- 
Congress of Paris, 1856. —Inviolability of Private Property 
on the Sea~—-The New Codes of Prof. Bluntschli, and 
the American Instructions.—The Wounded.—ARBITRA- 
TION.— History of Modern Cases, —Mediation.—Disputes 
as to Territories—The Geneva Settlement.—Universal 
Peace. — International Courts.— Objections. — Interna- 
tional Law Among Non-Christians; 


CHAPTER XXVIII.—SLAvVE TRADE AND SLAVERY IN Mo- 
DERN TIMES . : ; : : ° : : 
Both Catholic and Protestant Churches Guilty.—Sketch of 
Slave Trade.—Treaty of Utrecht.—Slave Trade in British 
Colonies; in Great Britain——The Struggle.x—Its Final 
Abolition, — Slavery and its Abolition in the British 
Colonies; in the United States.—Early Anti-Slavery 
Position of the Churches.—Later Weakness.—Origin of 

the Opposition Religious.—Other Elements Mingling. 


e 


CHAPTER XXIX.—MODERN SERFDOM . , : : 


Royal Ordinances against it in Prussia; in France and 
Italy.—Christian Ideas Working against it.—Abolition in 
Germany, Hungary, Prussia, and other Countries, 


SUAPTER Ss . Xs HE DUET) >). . d - 


Bentham’s Arguments for it.—Reply.—The Struggle of 
the Church.—Its Prevalence in France and IE-ngland.— 
Public Protests and Laws against it. — Experience of 
the United States.—Its Cessation due to Christianised 
Public Opinion. 


CHAPTER XXXI.—PRISON REFORM AND CHARITIES . 
Constantine’s Legislation.—Howard.—The “ Irish ” Prison 
Systein.—American Reforms.—Charities.—Societies to 
Protect Animals.—Humanization of Punishments.— Cruel 
Penalties of the Past.— Modern Improvements.—Imprison- 
ment for Debt.—The Sunday.—Its Value to the World. 


CHAPTER XXXII.— CO-OPERATION AND PAUPERISM ' 
Co-operation.—Communism.— Insurance against Poverty. 
—KReligion lessening Pauperism.—A Socialist’s Views on 
Christianity. 


XV 
PAGE 


387 


391 


399 


413 


xvl CONTENTS. 
PAGE 
CHAPTER XXXIII.—FREE TRADE.— HUMANITY.— LIBERAL 
GOVERNMENT . : : ; : : : : +, 420 
Progress of Ideas in Favour of Freer Intercourse.—Hu- 
manity between Nations.—Treatment of Inferior Races. 
—Missions.—Popular Education. —Churches.—Hope Im- 
planted. —-Liberal Government.—Diminution of Pesti- 
lences, due only in Part to Religion. 


CHAPTER XXXIV.—INTEMPERANCE. : ; , , eb 
Its Evils in America and Europe.—Temperance Movement, 
—Total Abstinence.—Influence of Religion. 


CHAPTER XXXV.—PERSECUTION . : ; ! . . ae 
No Foundation for in Christianity.—Guilt of the Church.— 
Treatment of the Jews; of Heretics and Schismatics.— 
Liberal Views of John Robinson ; of Grotius.—Experience 
of the United States. 


CHAPTER XXXVI. — HUMANE PROGRESS AMONG NON- 
CHRISTIAN PEOPLES. , . : : : ; - 445 
Continuity of Revelation.—Spiritual Ideas of Hindoos.— 
Caste, and Position of: Woman.—Buddhism.—Inspiration 
of Buddha.—His Defects.—The Failure of this Faith.— 
Confucianism.-—Its Merits and Wants.—The Arabs.— 
Mohammedanism.—Its Wants and Failure.—-Position of 
Mohammedan Woman.—Buddhism, Brahmanism, Con- 
fucianism not adapted for Humane Progress.—Climate 
not alone the Cause. 


CHAPTER XXXVII.—OBJECTIONS.—RESUME OF REFORMS 
BEGUN.— THE FUTURE OF MANKIND UNDER CHRIS- 
TIANITY 4°, : : : E : : A : <-3405 


Objections that the Christian Ideal is Unmanly; Unfit for 
the Struggle for Existence; Not Favourable to Accumu- 
lation of Wealth, Opposed to Progress of Science and 
to Liberal Institutions.—-Objection to Slow Working of 
Christianity.— Obstructions.—The Drift of Evolution in 
Favour of Sympathy, Unselfishness, and Morality.— 
Christianity Works with it, and adds a New Force.—Its 
Final Tendency a Perfect Society.—Inference from the 
‘Facts, and Argument for the Truth of the Christian Re- 
ligion. 

APPENDIX.— ANCIENT HUNGARIAN LEGISLATION . e 477 


x hk BE ua X # ” , 
ry ty Ve 
“(>> AOh8 —2 
ad 
CHAP TERE LT 


INTRODUCTION.—PLAN OF THE WORK. 


AT a certain era in the world’s history—not very remote 
as compared with the duration of the human race on the 
earth—there appeared a new moral force in human history. 
It originated in an obscure tribe of a remote province of 
the Roman Empire, and was embodied in the personality, 
life and teachings of a remarkable Being—called JEsuS 
POE HCEERIES (. 

The moral truths in these teachings were not absolutely 
new—as indeed the principles of morality rest on the prin- 
ciples of human nature, and must be known, more or less 
clearly, to all men—but they were presented with such 
unequalled simplicity and earnestness, and illustrated by 
a life and character of such unexampled elevation and 
purity, and accompanied with spiritual truths so profound 
and universal, as well as with supernatural claims, that the 
whole formed a new power in the world for the moral 
renovation of man-—in other words, a RELIGION; but 
one claiming to be absolute and universal, for all ages and 
races and circumstances. | 

The object of this work is to examine the effects of this 
faith or moral power on the advancement of the race in, 
humanity and morality; both what it has accomplished, 
and what it tends to accomplish. In other words, we shall 
seek to show what Christianity has already done for the 
world, and, considering its nature and objects, and its 
effects in a comparatively brief period, we shall infer 

: B 


2 GESTA CHRISTI. 


what will be its influence in a far longer period. The 
investigation is difficult for various and often opposing 
reasons. Many influences, material, moral and intellectual, 
have combined to effect the advance of the race in mo- 
rality and humanity. The problem is. to estimate the 
peculiar influence of this new moral power. Then the 
civilized world has become so imbued with the ideas and 
feelings implanted or strengthened by this faith, that those 
who have apparently opposed and attacked it, have not 
unfrequently been those most animated by its principles. 
While, on the other hand—so dangerous is the effect of 
power and ambition even in the religious field—the organi- 
zation which might be supposed to most expressly represent 
its truths has often been the most opposed to it in life and 
action. In the course of history, the sceptics, in matters 
of mercy and justice, have often been nearer Christ than 
professed believers; and the Christian Church has favoured 
practices and encouraged institutions, which have been a 
travesty on the teachings of Christ, and an offence to every 
feeling of humanity. The student who searches for the 
pure and benevolent impress of the great Teacher on the 
wild annals of human history, must divest himself of much 
reverence for the so-called “Church of Christ” on earth. 
The Church that is seen and known of men, represents 
often anything but His image. At times it is filled with 
bigotry and hate; it implants persecution in Roman law; 


it encourages frightful religious wars ; it opposes liberty of 


thought, and the investigation of science; its skirts are 
stained with the blood of the Inquisition, and wet with 
the tears of millions of victims of the slave-trade ; “it en- 
courages war, and is often only an emblem of power and 
lust and ambition. Still in every age were simple men 
and women, not known perhaps to history, or even to 
those of their own time, whose souls and lives were filled 


a Be 


INTRODUCTION— PLAN OF THE WORK. 3 


with the principles of this new faith. These gradually 
affected social habits and practices; sometimes changing ' 
them before they influenced legislation, sometimes, by a 
favouring public accident, being able first to reform laws 
and public officials; thus, day by day, by imperceptible 
steps purifying Church, State and people; gradually caus- 
ing certain great abuses and wrongs to melt away before 
the fervency of their spirit, and the innocence and bene- 
ficence of their lives. These have been inspired by 
CHRIST. Though for the most part unknown perhaps to 
ecclesiastical records, or the historians of empires, they 
have illustrated and transmitted the divine truths which 
they received from Him. In lives of purity and human 
brotherhood, in honesty, faithfulness, compassion and true 
humanity, they have sought to follow their great Leader. 
They have formed-the true and invisible “Church. of 
Christ.” While living for Him, they have lived for the 
human race. Their spirit and their sacrifices have made it 
possible that ages hence some of the great evils of man- 
kind should come to an end, that some tears should be 
forever wiped away, and a fair prospect be held forth of a 
distant future of humanity, justice and righteousness. The 
victories they have won in their silent struggles, and’ 
bequeathed to us, were really the “ Gesta Christi’”—the 
achievements of Christ. 

The first portion of these investigations relates to the 
Roman period of history, when the great empire, having 
its centre on the banks of the Tiber, controlled the 
civilized world. The object here is to,trace the influence 
of the new faith on the Roman law, and on the morals, 
habits and practices of the Roman people and provinces. 
Some of these researches must of necessity be somewhat 
technical, as bearing on slight changes in laws relating to 
personal rights and the succession of property. They are 


4 GESTA - CHRISTI. 


important, however, as affecting the greater changes and 
reforms which have since arisen, and are now in process of 
development. Others relate to the lessening and doing 
away of abuses, so deep-seated and long-continued, that it 
would seem that nothing but the power of a Religion could 
remove them. But in this field must ever be kept in view, 
the power of a system of philosophy and morals, the most 
elevated and noble which the Greek and Roman antiquity 
has known—the Stoical. The task of the investigator is 
to trace out the peculiar working of the new Faith, as 
distinguished from this older school of morals. 

The second division relates to a more interesting and 
picturesque period of history—the Middle Ages. Here 
the difficulty lies in condensing and clearing the great mass 
of material offered, and here, too, we stand on fields fought 
over in incessant discussion. The exact position of woman 
in the German tribes, the precise character of her Mund, or 
“Tutelage,” what marriage was with the ancient Teutons, 
and what feminine rights were in those wild tribes, are 
subjects still endlessly argued upon. Here, too, in all the 
reforms of the Middle Ages, whether as to woman, or 
humane legislation, or checking war, or abolishing cruel 
practices, or doing away with serfdom and slavery, the 
problem is to trace the precise influence of Christianity, as 
distinguished from many other moral and material forces, 
The only course in this investigation seems to be to ex- 
amine, so far as possible, original sources of evidence—codes 
of law, forms of will, the canons of the Church, decrees of 
councils, the words of ancient historians or of contem- 
porary scholars, and the most trustworthy and candid 
historians, and attempt to draw the most probable con- 
clusion, without fear or prejudice. 

It cannot be hoped that absolute certainty will be at- 
tained. The question of the precise work accomplished in 


INTRODUCTION.—PLAN OF THE WORK. 5 


the past by the great Teacher of Nazareth, will long be a 
question of historical probabilities. We can only offer to 
the discussion, patient investigation, and the love of Truth 
for its own sake. 

In the Modern Period, we enter on firmer ground. We 
are nearer the actors, or we have taken part in the events. 
In such matters as the abolition of the slave-trade and of 
slavery, in the repression of the duel, in the improvements 
of International Law, and the various modern charities and 
reforms, as well as the change in woman’s position, we 
know what part the Faith taught by Jesus has had, and 
what power it exerted, and what it continues to exert. 
Here the weak point which strikes the candid investigator, 
is not that Christianity has done what it has in modern 
times, but that it has not done a great deal more. This, 
too, must be considered in the argument. 

And, though not demanded by the investigation, a brief 
comparison of humane progress under this Religion, and 
under the highest beliefs among modern non-Christian 
peoples, will strengthen the conclusion. 

We offer the investigation to all lovers of truth. No 
friend of humanity will hesitate to rejoice, should it in- 
directly serve to strengthen the ancient Hope and Faith 
of the leading races of mankind, 


INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE LAWS, 
ERACTICL AND ANSITTTOLTIONS ‘OF 
LHE ROMAN PERIOD. 


CUAL i heeel: 


PATERNAL POWER. 


WHAT may be called the “natural progress” of mankind 
under the influence of the Divine Spirit and the instincts 
implanted in the human mind, is towards respect for the 
individual and towards self-control, in the preference of 
the higher and distant good to the lower and present. 
Our plan in the beginning of this investigation is to make 
plain the stimulus given to this progress in the Koman 
Empire, by the new system of ideas and the new forces 
thrown into the world through the Christian Religion. 
The improvements thus caused or hastened have been at 
the basis of all modern civilization and progress, and, 
though often apparently slight, are such as will influence 
all future history. 

One remarkable archaic institution survived and was 
transmitted through successive ages of Roman _ history 
before and after Christianity—the primitive paternal 
authority. It was thought by Roman legal writers, even 
as late as the time of the Pandects,! to be peculiar to the 
Romans. But modern investigation shows that it belongs 
to nearly all races in a certain stage of development, and. 
that the Germanic tribes who overwhelmed the Romans, 
had, many of them, carried it to an extreme degree. In 
the father’s house, the Roman father had absolute authority 
over the son; he could chastise, put in chains, exile or 

1 Jus potestatis quod in liberos habemus, proprium est civium 


Romanorum. (Jzs¢zz., lib. I., tit.ix. Pazd., I., tit. vi. vii.) 
9 


Io CLS LAW GH KIS 27, 


sell him asa slave; he had power of life and death over 
him. The son’s property became the father’s; he could 
assign a wife to him, divorce him when married, or trans- 
fer him to another family by “adoption.” The son only 


escaped and was “emancipated”! by a sale of his person, 


three times repeated, by his father. This custom, origin- 
ally designed to control parental greed, became used as a 
fictitious legal form for freeing the son. The son in a legal 
view seemed worse off than the slave: the latter, if formally 
emancipated, was finally free; the former reverted to his 
previous condition under his father, and in early ages 
required this triple form for entire freedom. 

The power of life and death was not _a legal fiction. 
Three different Romans of position, Cassius, Scaurus, and 
Fulvius are mentioned by Valerius Maximus? as having 
been executed by their father; and another son was 
banished by his father, Titus Avius. Seneca® relates that 
the populace pursued with daggers, on the public square, 
a knight (Erixon) who had scourged his son to death ; 
an act legal, but held to be too severe. The right of a 
father to kill a daughter taken in adultery was universally 
conceded. Cicero appears to admit a right of life and 
death even in case of an adopted son.4 He alludes to it as 
a recognised right in regard to a real son.® 7 

Manlius is said to have put his own son, though 


1 A son thrice sold by his father, was free from his power ; after this 
form he became emancipatus, or sold out of his family. In a similar 
manner, another son could be bought in from another family, or 
adopted. See Udfian, tit. x. “ Qui in potestate, etc.” 

rial Mak. VAS. 

® De Clem., 12,14. Populus in foro graphiis confodit. 

*. . . Vitae necisque potestatem habere ut in filio, erat. (Pro 
Domo, 29.) 

> Patrem tuum civem optimum, clarissimi viri flium : qui, Si viverat, 
qua severitate fuit, profecto non viveris, (Pro Domo, c. 32.) 


INSTANCES OF PATERNAL TYRANNY, Il 


victorious, to death for disobeying! orders ; and Cassius 
Brutus killed a son who had negotiated with the enemy.? 

A Latin historian® says, “One has seen fathers author- 
ised by law, drag their children from the tribune while 
they were addressing the people, in order to punish them 
at their discretion. They were dragged across the public 
square and no one dared defend them. ‘The consul, the 
tribune of the people, in fine the people itself, so proud 
of its power and force, who came to applaud them were 
obliged to keep silent, and respect in the fathers, an 
authority which the law gave them.” 

At the close of the republic, the Lex Pompeza de Parric., 
or the: law in regard to the murder of relatives by 
relatives, is silent with respect to the murder of a child 
by the father. 

It is related that the Emperor Augustus was present as 
witness and judge in a family-council which a father had 
assembled to decide on the fate of a son, guilty of pur- 
poses of parricide. The Emperor Trajan is said to have 
“emancipated” a son, because the father violated the 
duties of paternal affection. And an ancient authority 
approves the sentence which had deprived the father of 
the succession of a deceased son, thus emancipated.’ Even 
the Stoical jurist, Paul, seems to recognise the right of a 
father to sell his son in case of great need and poverty.° 

The paternal power existed also over the person of the 
daughter. 

This deeply-rooted institution was grafted throughout 
the world wherever Roman citizenship extended, though 
often modified and humanized. The spirit of humanity, 


WL tv.; Vil, '7. 2 Plut. (P Gr, et Rom.). 

3 Den. H. (Ant. Rom., 2, 26). gel Jie. fap, 

5 Qui contemplatione extreme necessitatis aut alimentorum gratia, 
filios suos vendiderint, etc. (Sesz., v. I, 1.) 


I2 ) GESTASCOURISTT. 


especially under Stoical influences, worked upon it through 
all periods of the Republic and the Empire. No student 
of history can ever cease to be grateful for the profound 
moral power which went forth from the Stoical school 
in antiquity. 

But under the Christian emperors, whatever may have 
been their individual characters, a great and marked 
change shows itself in this custom and the legislation 
upon it. A new idea had entered all classes as to the 
rights and personality of each individual, whether child or 
parent. When the son was recognised as the child of God 
and “joint heir with Christ,” equal with his father in the 
kingdom of the Lord, for whom Christ had died, paternal 
tyranny could not long continue The change did not at 
once show itself in legislation ; society is usually reformed 
before laws: but that elevation of each person began 
which, after many ages, must result in absolute emanci- 
pation and equality of rights, 

The learned commentator on the Theodosian Code Saw 
at once the source of the reforms which appear in that 
legislation. “It is Christian discipline,” says Godefroy, 
‘in regard to the Roman law, “ which gradually softens the 
severity of paternal authority,” | 

The spirit of humanity as expressed in the thoughts 
and legislation of the Stoical jurists, laboured steadily 
to mitigate this authority through many centuries. The 
words of the jurist Marcian were quoted even by those 
who had absolute power over the lives of the children : 
~ “Paternal power ought to rest in affection, not in 
‘atrocity.”? 

* Christiana disciplina paulatim patriz potestatis duritiem emol- 


liente. (De Maternis bonis. Inst., 248.) 
* Nam patria potestas in pietate debet, non in atrocitate, consistere, 
(Mare. Lust., lib. xiv. ; Pand., x\viii. 9, 5.) 
Adrian used these words on a remarkable occasion when the 
punishment of a son was softened. 


JUSTINIAN’S REFORMS. 13 


Constantine (333 A.D.) was as far removed from the 
spirit of Christianity as possible in his character, but his 
legislation, framed by men feeling the new power in the 
world, shows the humane forces derived from this faith. 
He ventured to punish as a parricide, a father killing his 
-son. Under Justinian (528 A.D.) the Christian influences 
are more distinctly felt, and the father could only inflict 
moderate penalties, and summon his children before the 
courts, where he could suggest such sentence as might 
be appropriate to domestic discipline. He could also 
disinherit. The mitigations in regard to the son's pro- 
perty were of gradual growth. At first, all his earnings 
and possessions belonged to the father. The humane 
spirit step by step protected him, and obtained for him 
more individual rights. Certain portions of his property, 
acquired in specific modes, were secured to him. But 
it was only under Constantine and the early Christian 
emperors that the son’s rights of property were extended 
to acquisitions made in a great variety of public and 
religious offices. He was not yet on a plane of legal 
equality with his father, but his position approached the 
modern position under the laws of Christian nations. 

Under the former ideas of the paternal tyranny, the 
father claimed as aright all the property of the deceased 
ancestors of the family, or of the mother, if they died 
intestate, and of his own children deceased. The laws of 
the Christian emperors gradually converted these rights 
of the Roman father into what are almost the rights of 
the modern father. He becomes only one of the heirs of 
property thus left; and his interests are made inferior 
to those of the minor children. The peculiar distinction of 


1 Cod. Theod., De Parricid.; et Fust., De his qui parentes, ete. 
Pirie! 7,12) 


14 GESTA GCTIRTS 77, 


the new power in the world was the protection it afforded 
to, and the interest it showed in, the child. 

The property of children who came under the power of 
a father by marriage, was especially protected from his 
claims. The mother was shielded in her rights; and her 
property, if she died intestate, descended at length to her 
children. The modern conditions of inheritance appear 
even under Constantine. The son, however, could not 
yet sell, mortgage, or bequeath by will his own property. 
Under the new ideas, Justinian! gave to the son full 
control over all his acquisitions. In the new light spread 
through the world, it seemed to him “inhuman” to do 
otherwise. The father had only a life-interest in his son’s 
acquisitions or property, unless they were derived from 
his own. In case of “ emancipation,’ he was allowed 
a life-interest of one-half. The: father could still dis- 
inherit. 

These changes in Roman law relating to paternal power 
after Christianity became a power in the world, may seem 
to the modern reader of no great account. But the differ- 
ence between the father’s power under the old Roman law 
and that under Justinian, measures the difference between 
the old and the modern world. The tyrant of the family 
has merely become the judge, or indeed little more than 


the modern father. He cannot “ expose,” buy or sell, or; 
imprison his son (except through the agency of the courts), — 


or abuse or kill him; he cannot adopt him into another 
family without his consent, or give him by force in mar- 
riage, but is only permitted to declare a veto on a marriage 
which is not agreeable to him. 

The drift of modern opinion and practice is towards the 
independence of the child, both social and legal. The 


, ae ales 
Just. lib. II. tit. ix. Per quas personas, De bonis que liberis, ete. 
Quod nobis zzhumanum visum est, 


~ 


AS Page eget 


SUCCESSION: OF- PROPERTY, | 15 


authority of the father is becoming more and more one of 
affection and of moral influence. Paternal tyranny, even 
in the most private matters of the family, is passing away. 
The beginning of this great change was in the reforms of 
Roman law under the teachings which came forth from 
Judea. 

Succession.—To understand these reforms still further, 
we must consider a subject somewhat technical, but im- 
portant as affecting modern society—the bearing of the 
paternal power upon relationship and the transmission of 
property. 

The family was for ages in Rome (as in many other 
countries) an zwperzum in tzmperio,and it could only be 
maintained thus by limiting relationship to descendants 
by males, or to “agnates.” If a married daughter were 
considered a member of the family, with equal rights to 
property and protection, it is manifest that great confusion 
would arise and conflicting interests be introduced in the 
family. From this principle arose much injustice to the 
woman. The relatives by males were the persons said to 
be especially “in power ” (27 manu), or in the family, of the 
father, though he was permitted to introduce others into the 
family by adoption. Without enlarging upon this import- 
ant topic, we would only say that under the old Roman 
law the succession of property followed the bond of 
“power,” and was determined by family, not blood. One 
could be a near relative of a deceased person, even a child, 
without being an heir. The son “emancipated” by the 
father was no longer in the family, and was not an heir. 
The heirs were especially the children or grandchildren 
who were in the family; they might even be adopted, 
but they are still first heirs. Daughters “in the family” 
succeed like males; there is under this archaic system no 
primogeniture or inferiority of sex. The wife not married 


16 GESTA CHRISTI. 


out of the family is like a daughter and heir; the wife of a 
son (himself in “the family”) is also an heir and in power. 
These are called “heirs of themselves”! or “necessary 
heirs,” continuing the person of the father. When there 
are no necessary heirs, then comes in the nearest agnate or 
relative by males, who would be “in power” if his ancestor 
were living. “Emancipation” or separation from the 
family breaks this relation, so that the direct descendants 
of an emancipated son do not succeed any more than do 
the descendants by married females. 

Reforms in this as in other directions of the paternal 
power began under Stoical influences; but under the 
Christian emperors there was, as might be expected, a 
more decided drift towards the natural bonds of succession. 
The influence of the new Faith was everywhere to protect 
woman, and to give her equal rights, whether in the family 
or out of it. Valentinian the Younger had enacted that 
the children of the daughter (who had been legally out- 
side of the family) should succeed to the maternal? grand- 
father with the “necessary heirs,” and that they should 
receive two-thirds of what would have fallen to their 
mother. Constantine, whose legislation is touched by the 
new spirit, goes still further. He provides in certain cases 
that she should take from the agnates, their children and 
grandchildren, one-third of their succession, excluding all 
other agnates. With Justinian (528 A.D.) came more of 
the force of the new religion upon the law of the Roman 
Empire. The reforms of his code struck deeper. The 
great codifiers who prepared his body of laws, seemed to 


* Sui heeredes (/ws¢., lib. II. t. xix), Mov., 164. Gaztus, lib. II. t. x. 
De intest. hered. (De Agnatis). One of the reforms in succession 
Justinian alludes to as “actionem Deo placentem,” as if feeling the 
religious motive. 

SUAS UDALL: tite t, 


: 
> “ 
: ere 


REFORMS IN - JUSTINIAN'S CODE. 17 


feel, and even in their dry labour to be elevated, by 
the fresh “enthusiasm of humanity” working in the world. 
They often speak of such and such a measure as “in- 
human.”! Justinian’s code enacted that the children of the 
daughter should represent their mother entirely, as if she 
were in the family. It does away with all distinctions 
of being “in the family” or outside of it, or those derived 
from the number of children (jus “berorum) of a woman, 
and established that those who had one as well as those 
with four children, whether “in power” or emancipated, 
were called equally to the succession of their deceased 
children. It preferred the mother to all the agnates or 
relatives by the males; all were excluded by her; the only 
competitors being the brothers and sisters of the deceased. 
The natural relatives, or cognates, were made equal to the 
relatives by the males or agnates. The new code abolished 


, all distinctions between agnates and cognates. The 


ss 


bond of “power” disappeared before the bond of blood. 


Paternal authority lost its pre-eminence. Property re- 
verted to the natural descendants of the deceased, whether 
“in power” or of their own right, whether “ emancipated ” 
or not, without distinction of sex or degree, to the ex- 
clusion of all other relatives. The masculine and feminine 
lines are equal. The drift of these reforms is towards 
equality of rights between women and men, or between 
different members of the same family, so far as succession 
is concerned. The children of the daughter separated 
from her family by marriage, or of the mother who 
from some form of marriage had never been considered 
as belonging to the family, and the mother and sister 
who had been excluded by “emancipation” were placed 


"Quod nobis zzhumanum visum est, et liberis pepercimus, et patri- 
bus debitum reservavimus. (/zs¢., lib. II. tit. ix.) 
c 


18 GESTAVCHRIGT I 


before the relatives. by males of a distant degree. Even 
the male and female children by a mother from a former 
marriage (“uterine ” children) were placed on an equality 
with the other heirs.! All these with the female descendants 
of male heirs, sisters, and shared equally in the inheritance. 

These reforms in the Roman law may seem to the 
modern student of little importance. But they are an in- 
dication of the tendency everywhere of the Christian Faith 
to introduce equality of rights among persons, to elevate 
the individual, to control arbitrary power, to substitute 
self-command, consideration and the influence of the 
affections for tyranny and unchecked power in the family. 
They were apparently but small advances; they had, 
it is true, been begun by Stoicism; but they received 
their greatest stimulus from Christianity, and properly 
heralded the greater and more profound changes which 
the new Faith was to introduce into modern society. 


NOTE ON °CHAPIER i. 


De Consang. et uterin. frat. (Col. VI. t. xii. Mov. xxxiv.) 

De Desc. succ: (/Vov. cxviii.) cap. 20. De Asc. succ. De succe. ex. 
etc., cap. ili. De Agn., etc.,cap. 18. Sed in omnibus successionibus 
agnatorum, cognatorumque differentiam vocare preecipimus, etc. (Vow. 
118.) 

Derlesit. tut. cap. iv. 

_ Et quoniam mater excludebatur quidem a filio masculo . . . nos 
non quzrentes filiorum jus, sed exinde ei legitima jura dant, ete. 
el Veta: \fVor, 22.) 

Nulla introducenda differentia, sive masculi, sive foeminz sint et 
seu ex masculorum seu feminarum prole descendant, sive suze potes- 
tatis sint constituti. (Col. IV. t.1i. /Vov. 108.) 

Psion Ul. tit, a1 


1Troplong. L’enfluence du Christianisme sur le Droit Romain. 
Inst. Fustin., Sandar’s note, lib. III. tit. iv. 


CEE ar ls hae BETS 
THE POSITION OF WOMAN UNDER ROMAN LAW. 


IT was a necessary part of the archaic institution of the 
family, that woman should be under the perpetual tutelage 
of her relatives by males; the object being to keep her 
property in the family and to separate her from public 
affairs. Under the old Roman law, such of her property as 
was mancipit,i—land, slaves and beasts of burden,—could 
not be disposed of without consent of her tutor. But she 
could not intervene in the government of the family, nor in 
industrial or commercial affairs, nor in public matters. A 
court of her relatives could inflict upon her the severest 
penalties in case of certain offences. In the time of Nero, 
a distinguished Roman lady, Pomponia Grecina, wife of 
Aulus Plautius, first conqueror of Britain, was accused of a 
“foreign superstition.” She was submitted to the judg- 
ment of her husband. Aulus assembled the relatives, and, 
after an examination, he declared her innocent. ‘There is 
much probability that this lady, one of the last instances 
of the extreme exercise of the marital power, was one of 
the first secret converts to Christianity.2— As a mother, the 


1 Perhaps, in its origin, such property as was “taken by hand,” but 
later, such objects as were transferred by the ceremony of “ manci- 
pation.” (U/pian. tit. xix. I.) 

Majores nostri, nullam, ne privatam quidem rem agere feminas sine 
auctore voluerunt ; in manu esse parentum, fratrum, virorum. (Cato’s 
Speech. Livy, 34, 2.) 

2 Tac. Ani, xii. 32. Agric., 4. 

19 


20 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Roman woman had originally no legal inheritance in the 
property of her minor children. “A child desiring to marry 
need not obtain her consent ; the children were not in the 
family of the mother but of the father; the mother had 
no power over them. As a wife, the husband had, under 
old Roman law, power of life and death over her, and 
absolute control of her property.; When she passed zz 
manum—into the power—of her husband, she became not 
his equal, but his adopted daughter or ward. The law 
considered her as a sister of her own children; all her 
property became that of her husband; all her earnings 
/were his. Like children and slaves, she was not, while 
in manu, a person in her own right. She lost all her 
family rights, and her agnates were deprived of their rights 
of tutelage or of succession to whatever of her property 
would revert to them. 

The great object of these legal arrangements was un- 
doubtedly to preserve the woman’s property in certain 
families. Yet there was underlying them a deep contempt 
for woman, utterly foreign to the new Faith, but familiar 


to the Stoical school. Thus Gaius gives as the ground for 


the tutelage of woman, her “levity of mind ”;! and Cicero 
in like manner, explains it as due to her “infirmity of pur- 
pose. * 

The three ancient forms of Roman marriage, the con- 
farreation,’ or religious ceremony ; the co-emption,* or civil 
contract ; and the wsws, or intercourse, all gave the husband 
most of these rights over the wife. But side by side with 


‘ Veteres enim voluerunt feminas etiam si perfecta etatis sint 


propter animi levitatem in tutela esse. (Gaus, Comm. 1, 144.) 

* Mulieres omnes, propter infirmitatem consilii, majores in tutorum 
potestate esse voluerunt. (Czc. fro Muren.) 

3 The eating of a cake of far, or rice, together. 

* The form of purchase. 


~ 


FREE MARRIAGE. ; 21 


the ancient marriage, sprang up another form, of “ Free 
marriage,’—a re-action from the former and in the interest 
of the woman, as that had been entirely in favour of the 
man. It was recognised by law, and produced legitimate 
children, though not always held as a respectable con- 
nection. Under it the children were submitted to the 
“ paternal power,” and the woman lived with her husband; 
but she possessed her own property, worshipped her own 
gods; and was still connected with her own family. There 
was, under this form, entire separation of property between 
husband and wife, and they could even bring a civil action 
against one another in the courts. Such a wife was called 
uxor and matrona, while under the old marriage she en- 
joyed the proud title of mater-familias. The old form 
of wsus became changed into this form whenever a wife 
absented herself for at least three nights. 

Thus, in Rome, there were two extremes in the history 


of marriage ; the excessive power of the husband under 
the ancient form, and too great laxity under the new. 
This is to be borne in mind in considering the peculiar 
influence of Christian teachings upon the Roman law. By 
vthe second century after Christ, wsws and wsucapio had 
disappeared as a rite by which the husband acquired his 
wife asathing. “ Confarreation” (the religious marriage) 
was only practised by families who discharged certain 
pontifical offices, and where this marriage was required 
as a condition of the children entering on these duties. 
“ Co.emption”” became the principal form for acquiring the 
absolute marital power. . But “ Free marriage” grew to be 
more and more the custom. Its effects on the rights of 
property in the woman were very marked. Under the old 
marriage, the woman zz manu had nothing, could earn 
nothing, and own nothing. If the husband died, she 
divided the inheritance as one heir among the children, 


22 GES TAGCHRISI. 


if there were no children, she was sole heir like a daughter. 
If she died first, the husband took everything, even the 
property which she had brought to the marriage. In Free 
marriage arose the des for a daughter; that is, the father 
and daughter were bound to aid in the expenses of the 
future family. The Julian Law made it obligatory on 
fathers and the paternal ancestors to dower their daughters. 
The dos was acquired by the husband, and united with his 
fortune ; he could alienate it, and even bring an action 
against his wife for objects in the dos, and, at her death, he 
was not obliged to restore it to her heirs. 

With Christianity, naturally came in a new conception 
of the position of woman. Her relation to her husband 
was gradually changed, and, step by step, these disabili- 
ties or disadvantages disappeared. The husband was first 
obliged to restore the dos to his father-in-law, solatzz loco, 
as a solace at her death. Incase of her husband’s death, 
she was permitted to demand from his heirs what she had 
brought in dos. And finally, do/es were guaranteed to the 
widow. 

But the spirit of the new times was especially expressed 
in the Code of Justinian. “It is worthy of the chastity of 
our times,’ + say the Institutes, “to give this new position 
to women ; tutelage of women must be done away with.” ? 
The dos must always be restored at the dissolution of mar- 
riage; the husband was to have only a temporary limited 
interest in it; it was inalienable even ‘by consent of the 
wife. She even had a legal mortgage over all the immov- 
able property of her husband to guarantee its restitution. 
The absolute power of the husband ceased under Justi- 
nian’s laws. 


1 Dignum castitate nostorum temporum, ete. (/7st¢. lib. I. tit. xii.) 
* Pupilli, pupillaque cum puberes esse cceperint, tutela liberarentur, 
PPTs, VD aks ei XXL Lib,wl iy tit wail, 


DIVORCE. 23 


This great code, under the inspiration of the fervent 
humanity taught by the new Faith, made one great step 
in this important reform, which is at length to give 
woman entire equality of rights under the law. 

The tendency towards “the personal and proprictary 
independence” of women in modern law and custom 
received its first great stimulus in the religion of Jesus 
affecting Roman law. 

The mother acquires also under this code equal rights 
with the father over the succession of deceased children ; 
she becomes their legal tutor, and presides over the choicc 
of a husband for the daughter. If the husband unjustly 
repudiates her, she receives full paternal power. This 
is the beginning of. that advance in the legal position 
of the mother, which has culminated in modern legisla- 
tion.” 

Divorce.-—The “ Free marriage” naturally gave rise to the 
utmost freedom of divorce. Separation could be legally 
caused by either party, by a desire to divorce expressed in 
writing (dibelium repudit). Women made use of this even 
more than men. At the close of the Republic the licence 
was frightful. Augustus attempted in vain to struggle with 
it by legal enactments. The Julian Law deprived women 
of their dos who provoked divorce, but without effect. 
Seneca speaks of “ guotidiana repudia,” daily divorces, and 
in another well-known passage, of the illustrious and noble- 
born women who reckon their years not by the number 
‘of the consuls, but by that of their husbands.*? Juvenal’s 
epigram is well-known, of the woman who had eight 


GSE iedtnV. AS -1Vov., 117, Ce 7- 

2 See chapter of this work on “ Position of Woman under Modern 
Influence.” 

3. | ,. Non consulum numero sed maritorum, annos suos compu- 
tant. (De Ler., iii. 15.) 


24 GESTA CHRIST, 


4 
husbands in five years! Martial says: “who marries so. 
often, marries not all;* she is but an adulteress ” ; Tacitus 
speaks of “sagna adulteria” of the time, and later, Ter- 
tullian ® represents divorce as the very purpose and end 
of Roman marriage. Vice among Roman families had 
reached its lowest depths during the first centuries of the 
Christian era. The Roman senate in the year 19 A.D. was 
obliged to pass an act, that no woman whose grandfather 
or husband had been a Roman knight was permitted to 
make her person venal.t A lady, whose father had been 
of Praetorian rank, had appeared before the A®diles to 
make a public profession of lewdness. 

Even before this, the more strict Romans had felt 
keenly the degradation of woman. Porcius Cato, in the 
year 558 of the city, had reproached women from the 
tribune for their desires for liberty and even licence in 
everything,’? and for so much neglecting the “right and 
dignity of the man” (jus majestatemque viri). Juvenal 
might well say that no crime or deed of lust was wanting 
to that age ®:—“the age of iron,”7 where the good were 
indeed few. Even the calm philosophers, like Seneca, felt | 
the deep depravity of the time. Woman he stigmatizes 
as a foolish, wild creature, unable to control her lusts. ® 


Sic crescit numerus, sic fiunt octo mariti, 
Quinque per autumnos. (Saz. vi.) 
? Que nubit toties, non nubit ; adultera lege est. (£/. vi. 7). 
* Repudium jam et votum est, quasi matrimonii fructus. (4fo/, c. vi.) 
* . . . ne quastum corpore facerit, aut maritus equus Ro- 
manus fuisset. (Zac. Anm., 2, 83). 
> Omnium rerum libertatem, imo licentiam desiderant. 
: Nullum crimen abest, facinus que libidinis, ex quo 
Paupertas Romana perit. (Sa@é vi. 223.) 
‘ Nunc etas agitur, pejoraque sacula ferri. (xiii. 29.) 
8 Rari quippe boni. (xiii. 25 ) 
Animalimprudens, ferum, cupiditatumimpatiens. (De Const. Sap. 14). 


o 


Satara 


INSTANCESTIN: THECROMAIN PERIOD. 25 


Paulus Atmilius, when he discarded the beautiful Papyria, 
only deigned to say, “ My shoes are new and well-made, 
but no one knows where they pinch me.” 


(s9 


Seneca speaks of Meecenas as having “married a thousand 
times.”* C. Sulp. Gallus is said to have repudiated his 
wife because he had seen her abroad with head un- 
eovereds® : 

Modesty was held to be a presumption of ugliness* A 
correspondent of Cicero in one of his letters casually men- 
tions, as an item of news, a divorce without cause (szve 
causa) of one Paula Valeria, who announced to her husband 
on his return from a journey that she was separated from 
him and was about to marry Dec. Brutus.’ Cicero himself 
repudiated his wife Terentia in order to escape his creditors, 
by giving up to them the dos of his new wife, Publilia, 
whom again he afterwards repudiated. 

It is possible that we may exaggerate the depravity 
of these times, and judge too much from the epigrams of 
satirists and the condensed phrases of historians, still such 
legislation as we have quoted from Tacitus is a kind of 
evidence not easily to be overthrown.6 It should not be 
forgotten, however, that intellectually the Roman woman 
must have received much training in the first two centuries, 
through the great number of secret associations existing. 
The burial inscriptions show that she bore an important 
part in these, and even held office in some of the munici- 


TOU bee Vitbe dit 02 

2 Qui uxorem millies ducit. 

BE Aaa V1.0 3,110); De Prove, 6.3: 

4 Argumentum est deformitatis pudicitia . . . Numquid jam 
ullus adulterii pudor est, postquam conventum est, ut nulla virum 
habeat, nisi ut adulterum irritet? (De Leu., 1, iil. c. 16.) 

PeiDoo.00 La7t../ep. 7. 

6 Ani., 2, 83. 


26 GCHSTA: CHRIS TT, 


palities. It does not appear that these societies elevated 
her morals or character.! 

Of the effect of the new Faith on this debasement 
of morals we shall speak elsewhere. Our present concern 
is with its influence on legislation. Laws are often far 
behind the morals of a community; and the Christian 
principles would naturally enter very slowly into the legis- 
lation of an empire like the Roman. Constantine is the 
first nominally Christian emperor, but in life and character 
was much further from the Christian standards than some 
of the Pagan emperors. Yet his body of legislation first 
shows the new principles struggling with old habits and 
modes of life. By laws passed in 330-331 A.D., a wife 
may be divorced from her husband only under three con- 
ditions ; when he is a murderer, a magician, and a violator 
of tombs. A wife who divorces herself without cause 
loses her dos, and is banished to an island. The husband 
may be divorced from his wife when she is adulterous 
or given to evil practices. The divorced husband can 
marry again and keep the dos of his first wife. But if the 
woman succeeds in proving her innocence, she has right 
again to all the property of her husband, and even to the 
dos of the second wife. 

This legislation under Constantine sought in every way 
to strengthen the marriage tie. Civil equality was restored 
between the spouses. The duty of fidelity was presented 
to the husband by the law, as a sacred obligation to him 
as much as to the woman. A married man was prohibited 
(340 A.D.) from having a concubine, and finally adultery 
was punished as a capital crime (/facinus atrocissimumnt). 


1 Boissier, in his excellent work, Za Religion Romaine, has argued 
with great force for a better character of Roman Society than 
historians have given toit. (See De Rossi, Za Roma sott., tom. iii, 


1577.) 


ROMAN CODE UPON DIVORCE. oF 


Concubinage was opposed, and efforts were made to change 
it into a permanent marriage. This legislation went on 
under succeeding emperors. Honorius and Theodosius 
. (421 A.D.) provided by law that any woman divorcing her 
husband, without legitimate cause, should lose her dos and 
all gifts of her husband, and be banished without hope 
of re-marriage. A husband guilty of this offence was 
punished in like manner. A woman repudiated wrongfully 
could re-marry in a year; and the husband abandoned by 
his wife, could re-marry at once. After a legal divorce, 
the wife could re-marry in five years. Theodosius and 
Valerian III. returned somewhat to liberty of divorce, but 
afterwards were compelled to limit it again. 

It cannot be said that this struggle of Christianity to 
impress upon Roman law the sanctity of marriage, was 
pre-eminently successful. What was gained in one reign 
was lost in another. Justinian’s Code even extended the 
causes of divorce. “The ‘marriage by “civil contract.” 
could be dissolved by mutual consent; but if one party 
only consented, heavy penalties were inflicted on the other 
unless legal grounds: for divorce existed. The woman 
who divorced herself from her husband without reason, 
lost her dos and was shut up in a monastery ; her property 
was divided, one-third falling to the children, and two- 
piircsstoe the “monastery. - Dhe- husband’ for. a’ similar 
offence was first fined, and finally imprisoned in a mon- 
astery, and deprived of his property.!. The children were 
usually delivered to that one of the parents believed by 
the court to be most capable of taking care‘of them. A 
preference was expressed in the laws, that that parent 
should have the charge of them who had not been a 
cause of the divorce. 

So changing and inconsistent were the different laws of 

P PN GU EL 7s Cr. 3; 


28 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Justinian on this important matter, that the commentators 
have been obliged to confess, that “some were the laws 
of the Czsars and some of Christ.” } 

The successors of Justinian fell into the non-Christian 
practice, and restored the liberty of divorce by mutual 
consent. 

Concubinage—By the side of legal marriage, existed 
in Rome the connection of concubinage. Constantine’s 
legislation shows the effect of the new ideas spreading in 
the world, in its struggle with this evil. His laws gave 
legitimacy to children born in concubinage, provided the 
parents were subsequéntly married; another law forbade 
any gift or bequest to natural children, and still another 
forbade official personages making public their condition 
of concubinage. 

Under Justinian, natural children were legitimized in 
three modes: by incorporation in the curza (the class 
from which magistrates were elected), by subsequent 
marriage of the parents, and by special edict of the 
emperor. 

As we have said, these effects of Christianity on Roman 
law in regard to marriage and divorce, and the violation 
of purity, are not striking, yet they show the beginning of 
the great reforms which this Faith is adapted to produce. 


* Alize sunt leges Czesarum, alize Christi. (Yerom., i. 178. Selden, 
Wor a2 Oe. Vl. Cr 31>) 


CHAPTER IV. 
PERSONAL PURITY AND MARRIAGE. 


IT need not be said that the Christian system of morals 
demanded the utmost purity of life, as well from the man 
as the woman. In regard to masculine purity, it is still in 
advance of the current opinion of the civilized world. So 
strongly is this elevation of morals characteristic of Christ's 
life, that we do not look for or expect direct teachings 
against vice. No direct denunciation is. transmitted from 
,Him against one of the most terrible organized evils of 
ancient or modern times—prostitution, or against the 
unnatural vices which were eating out the heart of Roman 
and Greek society. The impression, however, which an 
impartial reader would get from the narrative, is of a 
person so pure and elevated that such vices could not 
even be thought of when under His influence. His power 
goes back of organized vices, and touches the sources of 
character. His relations to abandoned women; the story 
of the adulterous woman, which, whether true or imagined, 
shows the popular conception of His character; and the 
few words reported from Him on these and related 
topics, together with the character of His early followers, 
all point to the unique elevation and nature of His in- 
fluence on the great weakness and sin of mankind. He 
required absolute purity from man as from woman. He 
was not, however, alone in this. The Stoical moralists 
had done the like ; yet but few of their followers had ever 


practised this high self-restraint, and no great example 
7 * 


30 7 GESTA CHREISTI.. 


stimulated them to it. Even the Stoical jurists! alluded 
to the principle; but there is little question that before 
Christianity entered the world, comparatively few persons 
felt this obligation of morals, and it may be said that now, 
a great multitude in all Christian countries have never 
yet reached the level of Christian doctrines in this respect. 
Had the Founder of Christianity simply taught purity as 
some of the early Fathers taught it—as meaning absolute 
asceticism and celibacy—-the world would have been com- 
paratively little benefited. The nature of man would have 
re-acted against it. We should have had even more celi- 
bate sects, greater reactions, a more unnatural condition of 
society, and a falling again into vices and habits as bad 
as those of the imperial era. Such a system of morality 
could not have met some of the first conditions of a 
divinely sanctioned system; it would have been only’ 
temporary and incomplete. 

_ Marriage.—But it is evident that Christ set the highest 
value on marriage. The only human institution in regard — 
to which He departed from His ordinary habit, was that of 
marriage. He lays down here a direct and positive rule. 
The words are so clear and definite, that a mistake of 
the historian or transcriber seems hardly possible. He 
evidently felt the bond as one which more than any other 
binds human society together. He foresaw the boundless 
evils which would arise to the world from a looseness of its 
ties; the breaking up of homes; the neglect and ruin of 
children ; the low position which freedom of divorce would 
give to woman; the temptation to man to choose and to 
throw aside; the destruction and degradation of family life 
which must ensue where marriage is taken up and broken 


* Periniquum enim mihi videtur esse, ut pudicitiam vir ab uxore 
exigat, quam ipsenon exhibet. (De conj. adult.,l.ii.c.8. Cod. Gress 
XIV.) 


CHRISTIAN IDEAL OF MARIIAGE. 3r 


at every whim. He either foresaw these evils, now so 
familiar to moralists, or He felt the sacredness of the union 
so deeply, as to command that only one cause should break 
it—unfaithfulness to the tie, or its moral equivalent. 

And in the case of separation for just cause—which He 
does not forbid—He does not permit a second marriage. 
In His view, the unhappy partners must bear the evils they 
have brought upon themselves, for the sake of the general 
good. At least this would seem, from the few words 
reported, to have been the position of the Founder of 
Christianity ; and the words are quite as distinct as many 
on which lasting Christian ,customs and doctrines and 
institutions have been founded. 

In a matter, however, of such vast importance to society, 
it would not be wise to form our permanent judgment as 
to the teachings of Christianity from a few literal words 
of Christ. There may be qualifications which have not 
been reported to us, or other commands which have not 
reached modern times. We can only reasonably infer 
from the language and drift of the gospel historians, that 
our Lord attached the highest sanctity to the idea of 
marriage, and taught the exceeding strictness of the tie, 
allowing no cause but unfaithfulness, or some equivalent 
moral evil, to be a cause of separation. 

Here, again, as we shall show later, the Leader is far in 
advance of His followers ; and the modern Christian world 
itself has not yet accepted the principles of their Teacher. 
The Apostles followed on in the same footsteps. Mar- 
riage was, to them, a mystical union of the most holy 
and ennobling character. Under the great Christian idea 
that the body was “the temple of the Holy Spirit,” all 
forms of illicit intercourse were profanation, and marriage 
like the union of Christ with the souls of his followers. 
This elevating and wholesome idea, which was equally 


32 GESTA "CHRISTI. 


removed from asceticism and sensuality, was thrown as a 
new purifying element into the fetid mass of Roman vices 
and evil habits. The early Christians illustrated the 
principle with their lives and ennobled it with their death. 
Their wives shared every persecution and pain of mortal 
life, and the repeated inscriptions on their tombs showed 
that the hope of sharing immortality together lighted up ~ 
even the ghastly arena with heavenly joy. Though the 
Master had not promised the continuance of the relations 
of earth in the present form, it became a favourite 
Christian inscription over the grave that the departed 
had been the husband of but one wife, or the wife -of but 
one husband in the life below. 

It is true that this sense of personal purity worked at 
length beyond the original teachings, and produced great 
calamities in the world, by the doctrine and practice of 
asceticism. The history of celibacy in the early centuries 
after Christ down to the Middle Ages, forms one of the 
darkest features in the annals of the Church. The practice 
was commenced, no doubt, under reasonable motives, to 
give greater freedom to the religious teacher in a wild age, 
and enable him to consecrate himself more absolutely to 
the work of religion. It was stimulated by the Oriental 
spirit of asceticism which early entered and finally cor- 
rupted the Church. The opposition of the most elevated 
spirits of the Church assailed it in every century; but 
it was sustained by the astute ecclesiastical leaders, who 
feared the growth of a kind of ecclesiastical feudalism 
with a married clergy, where power and possessions 
would be transmitted from the priest to his children. The 
interest of the Roman curia became in cutting off every 
servant of the Church from human ties, making itself the 
sole power in the ecclesiastical world. A priest with 
children and possessions, it was thought, would never 


CHITBACYH 33 


be an utterly obedient and faithful servant to churchly 
authority. Devoted Christians in every age, among the 
clergy, opposed the practice, but the power of organiza- 
tion, the interest of authority and no doubt often an 
exaggerated asceticism, overcame them. The custom at 
length proved one of the curses of humanity. As has 
been frequently remarked, it withdrew the most able and 
earnest among religious men and women during many 
centuries, from family life, and cut off their legitimate line. 
Those who were the most sincere left no children, and 
by so much diminished the inheritance of human good. 
The weak and dishonest left children to chance care and 
public protection, and thus increased the numbers of those 
exposed to moral dangers and physical suffering. Then, 
worst of all, the practice let loose through the early and 
middle ages after Christ, a fearful flood of licentiousness, 
hidden indulgence, crime against families, and even un- 
natural vices. The licentiousness of the convents and 
clergy became one of the greatest obstacles to the progress 
of the Christian religion.! “But for all this Christianity is 
not responsible. Asceticism was, in part, a natural re- 
action against the boundless licentiousness and immorality 
of the Roman world. 

The Christian influence, it is true, worked with only 
partial success in its struggle with Roman customs and 
laws in regard to marriage. The laxity had too deeply 
penetrated the habits of the people. We have seen that 
the legislation under the Christian emperors was of a. 
shifting character, and it is evident that the old customs: 
of the Romans long resisted the new ideas. Christianity 


The best history of this important topic is contained in Mr. Lea’s 
admirable Historical Sketch of Celibacy, one of the clearest and 
most valuable works on the Middle Ages, yet written. 


D 


34 GRSTAVCHRIS 17. 


laboured in two directions: it strove to ennoble and make 
firm the marriage relation, and it by no means allowed 
the freedom of action which was permitted to the Roman 
lady under the marriage of “usus,” or the “ Free marriage.” 
It elevated the position of woman and the character of 
the relation between husband and wife; but required of 
the latter a certain propriety and deference in appro- 
priate things to the wishes of her husband and the rules 
of the Church, which the Roman wzror had not latterly . 
known. The influence, however, of the Church on Roman 
law relating to marriage and the sexes, is to be dis- 
tinguished from that of Christianity. All that the latter 
taught was personal purity, and the absolute sacredness 
of the tie. 

But when we hear in Justinian’s! Wovell@ that nothing 
in human affairs is so much to be venerated as marriage, 
we may be sure that here is a clear trace of the new 
influence. 

We contrast the position given to women by one of the 
noblest of the Stoical jurists, Paul, who wrote in the third 
century, but under no influence from the new Faith 
“Women,” he says, “in every kind of affairs and obli- 
gations, whether in behalf of men or women, are prohibited 
from having any concern.” 2 

When Justinian says:° ‘ We enact then that all persons, 
so far as they can, should preserve chastity, which alone 
is able to present the souls of men with confidence before 


1 Nihil in rebus mortalium perinde venerandum est, atque matri- 
monium. De Nu /iis. 

*JIn omni genere negotiorum et obligationum, tam pro viris quam 
pro feminis, intercedere mulieres prohibentur. (Paz. Sent, lib. 11. 
t. xii.) 

® Sancimus igitur omnes quidam, secundum quod possunt, casti- 
tatem agere; que etiam sola Deo cum fiducia potis est hominum 
animas presentare. (/Vow,, ili, 1, 14.) 


EFFECT UPON WOMAN. 35 


God,” we know immediately that here is a faint reflection 
of the new Light shining in the world. And when the 
law-giver expresses his belief in the Lord God, that 
through his zeal for chastity, a great benefit will accrue 
to the Republic, we can see distinctly the workings of 
the new power. 

Under Christianity begins that position of woman, which 
has been since both an element and an evidence of the 
progress of the most civilized races. With all changes of 
society, she has never lost the halo which the new Faith 
threw about her then, and, as we shall show later, even the 
submergence of the Roman empire under the Northern 
barbarians, only aided the influence of Christianity in 
exalting the weaker sex. 

Sir Henry Maine, in his valuable work on the “Early 
History of Institutions,” states that the existing written 
law of the Hindoos has preserved many of the strict and 
harsh features in regard to the paternal and marital power, 
which belonged to the ancient despotism of the family, and 
is distinguished for “its excessive harshness to the personal 
and proprietary liberty of women.” 2 

Whatever independence from the family despotism has 
been secured to the child or the woman in India, he justly 
attributes to the influence of religion—the ancient faiths of 
India. Wherever there prevailed any belief in responsi- 
bility after death,? “the conception of the individual who 
was to suffer separately was necessarily realized with 
extreme distinctness,” and it is this conception of the in- 
dividual and his rights which lies at the basis of the great 
modern legal reforms. 


’ Credimus in Domino Deo, etiam ex hoc nostro circa castitatem 
studio, magnum fieri nostra republicaee incrementum. (JVov., xiv. 


3, I.) 
2 Page 303. ss Page 331. 


36 GEST AN CHRIST: 


It is not improbable that Buddhism, in teaching the 
absorption or annihilation of individuality (szrvana) in 
divinity, may have also aided in giving that inferior 
position to woman which is characteristic of Oriental 
countries. 

The author quoted above, who is certainly not too 
favourable to Christianity, admits that among all the in- 
fluences which have made the two great branches of the 
Aryan races so different—the Hindoos on the one side 
and the European on the other—the one most powerful 
in forming the civilization of each is, that the one branch 
steadily carried forward the series of reforms which elevated 
woman, and the other, though going a little way, recoiled 
from them? 

In other words, the European races lived under the 
peculiar influence and stimulus of the teachings of Christ, 
and the Hindoos under non-Christian faiths. The former 
everywhere tended to elevate woman, both through the 
individual responsibility taught and through the example of 
the Teacher. The iatter only partially ensured this end. 

Unnatural Vices—In one violation of personal purity, 
the Christian system has achieved a signal and _ lasting 
victory ; and yet—so far has the Christian world advanced 
beyond the Greek and Roman standards—the subject 
itself has become revolting and abhorrent to modern tastes. 
But to omit all mention of it would be to leave out of 
view one of the great and beneficent triumphs of the 
system of morals which came forth from the teachings 
and life of Christ. Our Lord Himself never speaks of 
unnatural passions. The very spirit of His personality 
would banish even the thought of them, and the personal 
love He inspired put the soul far above all temptation 
under them. 

ML Arly List 10; asia Als 


PLATO ON UNNATURAL PASSION. 37 


One great philosopher, who in Greek and Roman 
history approached nearest Jesus in his conception of the 
reforming and renovating power of love to a Divine charac- 
ter— Plato, speaks with a despairing sadness of these lusts 
which were eating out the vigour and character of his 
people. He evidently looks to the future abolition of 
these fearful evils as remote as we would in this day to 
the removal of prostitution, or the entire doing away of 
war. Three principles or moral forces, he says in the 
/“ Laws,” may break up these evils. First, that of piety, or 
love toa Divine person ; second, the desire for honour or 
the respect of the good; and thirdly, the love of moral 
beauty—that not of the body but of the soul.) “These 
be perhaps romantic aspirations, but they are the noblest 
of aspirations, if they could only be realized in any state ; 
and, God willing, in the matter of love, we may be able to 
enforce this.” He urges then that those, not only guilty 
of these passions, but all who sinned publicly against the 
marriage tie, should be excluded from all civic honours 
and privileges, and be deemed strangers and barbarians. 
In another passage, he says, “ Now if a law to this effect 
could only be made perpetual, such as already prevents 
incest, such a law, extending to other desires and conquer- 
ing them, would be the source of ten thousand blessings. 


1? , + Xr N N , , , 2 5\ N A 
ev yevos ov, TeptAaBov ta Tpia yévy, Bialour dv py rapavopety. 
KA. Iota dy; 
A®. To re GeoreBes dpa Kat pirdtiyov Kat TO py TOV TOMATO, 
Ss Xx a , nm nN +” nan \ SY BY Pc “ 
aia tay Tporov THs Wuxis dvTwy Kahdv ye yovos év érOupia, Tadra 
\ } 4 > 2 \ a ie > \ > , a \ 
dy Kadarep tows ev pidw ra viv Acyopev early edyal, odd ye payy 
aptota, eimep yiyvoito év wacais moXect, yiyvoiro av, taxa & ay, 
lal lan A VA 
ci Geos eho, katy dvotvy Odrepa Bracaipneba rept epwrikdr, 1) pndeva 
a ¢ “A ¢ if 
tohpav pydevos amtecGa tov yevvaiwy dpa xa é\evbepwv rHiv 
yapeTns cavtod yuvarkos, GOuta dé wadAakdv oreppara Kal vdOa ji) 
7 be + a> OFF \ - ay a 8 
OTEPELV PWHOE AYova appEevuv Tapa Yiow. (Nonto7, 8.) 


33 GIGS De Ld Id 


- . But matters have now come to such a pass that 
the enactment of such laws seems to be impossible, and 
never likely to take place; just as the continuance of an 
entire state in the practice of common meals is also deemed 
impossible.” } 

The passion of which he speaks arose in Greece un- 
doubtedly from an exaggerated love of youthful beauty, 
and was, with some of the moralists, like Socrates, one of 
the purest of sentiments. The three forces of which Plato 
spoke, were especially thrown into the world by Jesus :— 
love to a Divine Person; the respect of the good or of His 
followers; and an elevated feeling for moral beauty. In 
the mind of the humble follower of Christ was ever that 
pure and Divine image, into whose likeness he hoped day 
by day to be changed ; around him were the good, whose 
respect was his comfort; and before his thoughts were 
oftentimes things pure and noble and of good report. 

Nothing shows more distinctly the degradation of the 
moral sense of the ancient world in. these matters than the 
speech which Plato puts in the mouth of Alcibiades in 
regard to Socrates, in the drunken dinner of the “Sym- 
posium.” It is utterly untranslatable to modern ears; and 
though the great moralist is everywhere pictured as free 
from vice, his purity seems rather an effect of his intel- 
lectual pre-occupations, and is never once spoken of by 
dramatist, or biographer, or by himself, as any virtue. The 
Greek, and more particularly the Latin literature, is filled 
with traces of vices which have utterly passed out of 
memory in the Christian world. . Lucian, nearly all the 
Latin poets and dramatists, Apuleius, Petronius Arbiter, 
Athenzus, reveal a debasement of morality among classes 
not corrupted by luxury, which has not been known 
in modern times. It is not that, like Juvenal, they pick 
out extreme immoralities for a biting sarcasm; but they 


CHRISTIAN OPPOSITION. 39 


allude casually and without shame to excesses and habitual 
vices, whose very name is lost to modern ears. ,Even 
Cicero says soberly that it was held as a disgrace among 
the Greeks not to indulge in unnatural vices.! He did not 
say that his own countrymen fell even lower than the 
Greceks.* 

The early Christians set themselves like a wall against 
this tide of sensuality. The plain words of the Apostle 
are well known.” Where Christianity had the faintest 
power, there such impurity could not even be thought 
of. As soon as its influence reached legislation, we find 
a vigour of denunciation and a severity against these 
excesses, which show the new Power in the world. 
The Theodosian Code, which codifies the legislation even 
of Constantine, orders the most intense punishments on 
those guilty of such crimes.? And again, filled with the 
Christian idea of the body as the temple of the Holy 
Spirit, the law-maker speaks of the duty of preserving 
the abode of a manly soul sacred,* and threatens the 
severest penalty on any who should violate it. Justinian 
shows even more clearly the influence of the Apostles 
and of the Scripture in following the new ideas on these 
crimes. He says, “taught by the Holy Scripture, we know 
what a just punishment God inflicted on the inhabitants 
of Sodom,” and he warns all who have the fear of God, to 
abstain from actions so wicked and impious that even the 


1 Apud Grecos, opprobrium fuit adolescentibus, si amatores non 
haberent. (De ep. fragi., lib. iv.) 

2 Romans 1. 23-29. 

Ubi Venus mutator in alteram formam, ubi Amor quzritur nec 
videtur, jubemus insurgere leges ut exquisitis poenis subdantur in- 
fames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei. (Cod. 7hzod., ix. tit. vii. 2, 3-) 

4 Sacrosanctum cunctis esse debere hospitium virilis anime ; nec 
sine summo supplicio alienum expetisse sexum, qui suum turpiter 


perdidisset. (ix. t. 7.) 


40 GAS TAUGCITINGS Ly. 


brutes do not commit them.! And still again, the law 
bids the offenders who violate nature, to bear in mind the 
fear of God and a future judgment.” 

So far as is known, no philosophy or religion among 
the Greek and Roman races freed mankind from these 
detestable vices. 

The emperors under Stoical influences made some effort 
to check them, but without success. Domitian punished 
certain knights and senators for these offences, Antoninus 
Pius and Marcus Aurelius had the virtue to avoid but not 
to punish. A. Severus, it is said by the historian, “ haduzt3 
am antmo ut exoletos* vetaret”; but he feared the increase 
of private vice, and therefore let alone the “szorta virilia.” 
These vices still exist among peoples outside of Chris- 
tianity. They are well-known in Turkey and India. But 
so imbued has civilized society become with the principles 
taught by the Master, that such evils are left behind in 
its moral progress, and no longer threaten the future of the 
race. 

May it be an omen of other triumphs! 


* Scimus etenim, sacris scripturis edocti, quam justum Deus suppli- 
cium, his qui olim in Sodomis habitabant, propter hunc ipsum in 
commistione furorem intulerit, . . . unde omnes qui timori Dei 
intenti sunt, convenit, ut a tam impia et scelesta actione abstineant, 
quam ne in brutis quidam admissum reperire est. (Vov., clx. 1.) 

*. . . Et ipsi nature contraria agunt; istis injungimus in sensi- 
bus accipere Dei timorem, et futurum judicium, et abstinere ab hujus- 
modi diabolicis et illicitis luxuriis. (Cod, vi. t. 1. Wov., yd) 

* Exoletos suos ut ad longiorem patientiam impudicitiz idonei sint, 
amputant. (Seveca, Controv., 10,4; Ep., p. 49). 

* This expressive word described a class ; they were indeed utterly 
“burned out” in body and soul, 


CHAPTER). 


SLAVERY, 


THERE is probably no one organised evil in history which 
has been so replete with human misery, and has drawn 
after it such a train of vice, degradation and corruption, 
as slavery. It is doubtful if it ever existed in a worse con- 
dition than in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. In 
the moral struggle with the abuses of slavery in different 
countries and ages, especially where the victims were of a 
totally different and inferior race, it has been the custom 
in the heat of the argument to speak of modern slavery as 
worse than that of the ancient world. But closer investi- 
gation shows that the system of Roman servitude had 
more than the cruelty of the modern, and was even more 
of an irresponsible despotism, while it debauched society 
and literature beyond what has ever been experienced in 
any community of recent times. 

A distinguished French author on this subject (Wallon) 
has somewhere said, that for public depravity to reach 
its utmost depths of licentiousness, there needed to be a 
being with the passions and attractions of a man, yet 
stripped by public opinion of all the moral obligations of 
a human being; all whose wildest excesses were lawful, 
provided they were commanded by a master. Such a 
being was the Roman slave. We caa see his influence in 
the disgusting and debasing comedy and poetry of the 


Imperial age, wherein the relation of the beautiful and 
41 


42 CAR NOT HI EI f 


irresponsible victims of power to masters without shame 
and youth without virtue, is the perpetual theme. 

We discern the canker of slavery in the unexampled and 
incredible degradation of Roman family life in the age 
accompanying and following the life of Christ. And the 
political economist finds everywhere in Roman polity the 
seeds of boundless misery and of certain financial ruin, in 
the habits and customs born of this institution. 

It was not latefundia, or the “large farm system,” which 
was destroying the Roman Empire, but the poor agricul- 
ture, the waste, extravagance, bad management, aversion 
to labour, and general discontent—the natural fruit, in the 
rural districts, of slavery. This unjust system was eating 
away the character and life of the ancient world, and 
preparing calamities which should be felt by Europe for 
hundreds of years to come. 

Christ appeared in a remote corner of the Roman 
empire, in an age when these evils were at their worst, 
though probably but few of them presented themselves 
prominently in Galilee. 

It might have been thought that the great Reformer 
would have uttered some words against this stupendous 
abuse. To the mind of the writer, it has often been a 
subject of difficult questioning, why He, who felt so 
keenly the evils of humanity, should not have put forth one 
simple command against this gigantic system of injustice. 

No direct word against slavery, however, came forth from 
the great Teacher. It was not until the ninth century 
after, that one of his humble followers, Saint Theodore of 
Stude (Constantinople), ventured to put forth the com- 
mand “Thou shalt possess no slave, neither for domestic 
service nor for the labour of the fields, for man is made in 
the image of God.” ! 

* Quoted by Wallon, 2st. de l’Esclavage, vol. iii. p. 484. 


SILL VGL ROL CHRIST. 43 


The explanation of the silence of our Lord is no doubt 
to be found in the general character and design of His 
mission, as we gather them from His life and the words 
recorded of Him. An organised evil almost as destructive 
and debasing to the world: as slavery, was prostitution. 
Unnatural passions were consuming the life and virtue of 
the Greek and Roman races. War was desolating almost 
every portion of the world and bringing after it trains of 
evils and calamities. Yet Christ only alludes to these, 
or implies his deep and fervent opposition to, or condem- 
nation of, them. 

As is well understood, His aim was to renovate and 
rescue the individual soul, looking forward through that, 
n very remote ages, to the establishment of the “ kingdom 
of God” on the earth, or in other words, to the social and 
complete reorganization of mankind on His principles. 
We find no evidence in His words, that He even designed 
to form a Church or general organization of believers, but 
rather that He expected that little gatherings and brother- 
hoods of those who loved and followed Him would form 
themselves for mutual good. His language in innumerable 
similes showed that He believed that these principles He 
taught would only be successful after long periods of time 
and gradual development. Most of His figures and 
‘analogies in regard to the “kingdom of God,” rest upon 
the idea of slow and progressive growth or change. He 
undoubtedly saw that the only true renovation of the world 
would come, not through reforms of institutions or govern- 
ments, but through individual change of character, effected 
by the same power to which Plato appealed—the love- 
power, but a love exercised towards Himself as a perfect 
and divine model. It was the “kingdom of God” in the 
soul which should bring on the kingdom of God in human 
society. With such a mission and such an aim, or filled 


44 GES TALOH RESTS. 


with such intense sympathy towards men and such a pro- 
found sense of what God could effect in each human soul, 
the institutions and practices of men would sink away as 
of comparatively little importance. The enduring things 
below all governments and organized evils, were the human 
conscience and the human affections. If they were pure 
and right, all else would gradually become so. Such an 
aspect of human life naturally takes no account of some ot 
the grandest movements of reform in different aves. 9) Lo 
a certain extent it is apart from all efforts for liberty, for 
improvement of laws or the advancement of science, for 
the spread of temperance or education, for opposition 
to social impurity, for the protection of children and the 
elevation of the poor. And yet ultimately this Christian 
system will be found.at the basis of all these great move- 
ments of progress in human history. But it began by 
aiming at the individual and not at society, and aiming 
alone at an entire change of the affectional and moral 
tendencies, : 

If our Lord may be conceived as looking at the imme- 
diate consequences of His inspiration and His teachings 
(which we doubt), it may well be that He would hesitate 
before preaching the duty of immediate emancipation in 
the Roman empire as it then was. The truth is, that a 
fathomless pauperism was then covering the empire—the 
result of conquests, oppression, bad finance, invasion of 
barbarians, and slavery—and to thousands of the poor 
slavery was a less evil than the poverty they endured. A 
we shall relate afterwards, there came a time when an 
imperial law, permitting those who “took up” exposed 
children to make slaves of them, was a law dictated by 
motives of humanity. It is doubtful if the world has ever 
seen an era when so many human beings were exposed to 
such bitter poverty, and even to starvation, as during the 


Tien Peel ORCH, 4S 


few centuries after Christ. Now for a Divine teacher to 
have proclaimed, then and there, the duty of absolute and 
immediate emancipation, would have plunged the Roman 
world into a “misery” beyond all bounds of conception, 
and would have let loose a war of extermination between 
masters and slaves, which would have turned Europe and 
Asia into a field of blood and slaughter. The principles 
which Christ taught evidently must overturn slavery from 
its foundation. They scattered the seeds of absolute free- 
dom and equal justice. They destroyed all distinctions 
of caste and race. The individual soul became of infinite 
importance and of equal value, whether in the slave or the 
king. The Apostles only followed in the footsteps of the 
Master. In the great community of the lovers of Christ, 
“bond and free” were alike. There was no distinction in 
the sight of God, none in the Church. They recognised 
slavery as they recognised the tyranny of Cesar, but they 
put the slave, in their treatment and their language, on the 
like footing with his owner. And the owner could only be 
a_member of their association by professing to be willing 
to treat his servant as he would himself in like case be 
treated. The slave partook of the memorials of the life 
and death of the Lord side by side with his master. The 
infant ecclesia, or assembly and brotherhood of believers, 
began to be a shelter and receptacle for numbers of that 
great despised multitude—the slaves of the Romans! 
It is true that in the succeeding centuries bishops and 
clergymen not unfrequently held slaves. But the spirit 
of Christianity began immediately that long contest 
with human slavery, which, under changing fortunes and 
with many defeats, has been waged now for eighteen 
centuries, and may be said only to have won its final 


1 It should be remembered that the Romans excluded their slaves 
from a share in patriotic worship, (Cat. De Re Rust., 143.) 


46 CYR BCT O Ls 


victories in the middle and latter half of the nineteenth 
century. ; 

In considering this and similar struggles, it should be 
understood that I distinguish always between “ Chris- 
tianity” and “the Church.” The history of the latter 
has been by no means consistent with, or a development 
of, the spirit of its Founder. Its course has been not 
seldom marked by the qualities which He most con- 
demned. It has committed gigantic blunders, which have 
retarded for ages the progress of His principles. An 
organization may -bear the name and represent some of 
the features of a great principle, and yet in others be 
entirely inconsistent with it. No true Republican would 
admit that the first French Republic represented the 
genuine idea of a Republic, even if it had been trans- 
mitted under that name for many centuries. Under the 
term “Christianity” we include the principles and moral ) 
sentiments taught and illustrated by the life and words of 
Christ, as they are made known in the writings of the 
gospel historians and the Apostles. They form a suf- 
ficiently distinct body of moral teaching, and are often an 
entirely different matter from the teachings or the example 
of the professed followers of Christ. 

Christianity and Roman Law upon Slavery.—In studying 
the influence of Christianity upon slavery in the Roman 
empire, we are never to lose out of view the noblest 
school of moralists which the world has seen outside 
of Christian believers—the Stoics. These philosophers 
had a profound effect upon Roman jurisprudence just 
preceding the Christian emperors. The statements and 
principles of the Stoical jurists in regard to liberty and 
natural right have become apopthegms of liberty, and 
have influenced all succeeding ages, They have reappeared 
in the declarations and charters of American freedom, and 


SH OLESSAVD SLAVERY, 47 


in the enthusiastic statements of the French writers on 
Natural Right. 

It does not appear, however, that they had any very 
strong effect upon the position of the slave under Roman 
law, and still less on the practices of the people towards 
this unhappy victim. The Stoics were even more in- 
consistent with their principles of humanity than the 
Christians; and some of the most heartless acts of in- 
humanity recorded in ancient history are those of Stoics 
to their slaves. 

Cato deliberately gives permission to sell an old, or a 
sick slave.! 

The following instance is related by Tacitus?: A wealthy 
citizen of Rome had pledged freedom toa slave, and had 
broken his promise. The man, enraged and disappointed, 
assassinated his master. By law, in such cases, all the 
slaves under the same roof should be executed. The pub- 
lic duty in this case was discussed in the Senate; and the 
celebrated Stoic, Cassius, defended the law, and urged its 
enforcement. . The slaves, all innocent, to the number of 
six hundred persons, were finally executed. 

Plutarch says that Flaminius put a slave to death merely 
to afford a spectacle to’a guest who had never seen a man 
die. Cato, the Stoic, when he put one to death, used to 
take the opinion of all the others before killing him. The 
story of Pollio—also a Stoic—is well known as related by 
Seneca ; how he amused himself by feeding his fish with 
fragments of his mutilated slaves. Many were furnished 
to the amphitheatres to be killed in the public festivals. 
Old and infirm slaves were abandoned to die of hunger. 
Many were brought to an island in the Tiber and left in 

1 Vendat boves vetulos, oves deliculas . . . servum senem, 


servum morbosum vendat. (Cato, De remot., 11.) 
& Ann., xii. lib. 42. 


48 GES THRE RIS Ti; 


the temple of AEsculapius to the care of the god. The 
poet says of such, that to help them only lengthens out a 
life of misery.! 

Juvenal, who wrote when Stoicism had full sweep among 
the Roman cultivated class, asks with bitter irony, “how 
a slave could be a man,” ” 

The Stoic Ulpian speaks of “a slave or any other 
animal” ®; even as the book of Revelation describes the 
wealth of the wicked Babylon, as in “the bodies and souls 
of men.” 

Seneca, the great moralist, says that a slave has no 
hearth nor religion.* 

Even Gaius, the Stoical jurist, under the rule of that’ 
mild philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, could observe inci- 
dentally that with almost all nations, the right of life and 
death is given to the master over the slave;* and he 
classes slaves with animals. Yet even he speaks of “ manu- 
mitting in church,”’® as if Christian ideas had reached 
the legislation of the Stoics, and he afterwards quotes: 
“This age’ of humanity,” as if he felt the new Power 
which was permeating the world. 

Still the inconsistencies of the Stoics should never cause 
mankind to forget that one of those condensed expressions 


1 De mendico male meretur qui ei dat quod edit aut quod bibat 
Nam et illud quod dat, parcit, et illi producit vitam ad miseriam. 
2 O demens ! ita servus homo est! 
Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas ! 
(Fuv. Sat., vi. 475.) 

Spon D2. vil T, "15. 4 Controv., 10, 21. 

» Apud omnes pereque gentes animadvertere possumus, dominis 
in servos vita, necisque potestatem esse, (Gg Celi 62... Servic: 
et jumentis, ceterisque rebus. (vii. 1, 3.) 

° Nam qui voluerit aut in ecclesia . . . manumittere. Gia 
iat) 

WTOC tet pores (¢r., (LL. X..1,) 


NUMBER OF ROMAN SLAVES. 49 


of human instincts, which has been a charter of liberty to 

sO many races and countries since, embodied by Justinian 

in a Christian code, came originally from a Stoical jurist. 
/ “By natural right all men are born free; by right of 
+ nations (2.2, by conquest) slavery has come in.” } 
The number of Roman slaves can only be judged of by 
side indications. A law of Augustus forbade a poor exile 
from carrying away with him more than twenty slaves ; 
another reduced the number which could be maintained 
by testamentary provisions, making one hundred the 
maximum, which, from the proportions mentioned, would 
indicate that five hundred was not an uncommon number 
to be owned by one person. We hear from Seneca,* of 
a master counting the roll of his slaves as a general counts 
his soldiers. Martial alludes to an eccentric person being 
attended by from ten to two hundred:slaves ; Pliny says 
that Ceecilius left 4,116 slaves after his death. The poets 
mention them as the sign of wealth;? the want of them 
was the last evidence of poverty.* Tacitus speaks of the 
city becoming frightened at the increasing number of 
slaves.5 A proposition was once made in the. Senate to 
indicate the slaves by their dress, but was dropped because 
of the danger that the slaves would outnumber the free- 
men. When Alaric besieged Rome, he was aided by a 
force of 40,000 slaves from the city itself’ The number 
5 / ‘ Cum jure naturali,; omnes liberi nascerentur; .». . jure gen- 
/ tium servitas invasit. (/Vov.) (Dég., 1.4. L., xvii. 52.) 

eebe 1 7ing. an. IX. 

3... =~. «quot pascit servos ! quot possidet agri 

Jugera! (Zart., xxii. 88, 3.) 

4 Isti quoi neque servus est, neque arca. (Catz., xxiv. 5, 8.) 

> In urbem jam trepidam ob multitudinem familiorum. (Azz), 
x27.) 

6 Si servi nostri numerare nos ccepissint. (Sen. De Clem, 1. 
24.) 

E 


50 GUO Ll Cla Tals Lor, 


evidently was formidable throughout the period imme- 
diately succeeding Christ. | 

In his legal position the slave was a property, whose 
nature nothing but the will of the master could change ; 
he could be given, let, sold, exchanged, and seized for 
debt. He had no civil rights; could enjoy no legal 
marriage, only cohabitation (contubernium), and therefore 
could not be accused of adultery... He had no legal 
parentage, no property, no right to legacy ; could sustain 
no action before a court, could not be a witness, and his 
testimony was only legal with torture.” 

Of his capacities and moral nature it was said, “immo- 
desty is a crime in a freeman, a necessity in a slave, a duty 
in a freedman (or liberated slave).” Still, with all this, the 
Koman slave was not considered «in law as altogether a 
thing. The Cornelian law against murder applied to all 
conditions of men. The Stoical spirit had begun before 
Christianity to bring about some alleviations to the lot of 
the slave. A certain right of property was given him, and 
under Adrian a master was forbid to kill his slave. Under 
Antoninus Pius, a master who killed his bondman without 
cause was punished for homicide. Severus forbade personal 
injury to foreign slaves. The Petronian law prevented 
masters from delivering servants to be employed in the 
combats of wild beasts. Adrian prohibited the sale of 
slaves, without the intervention of judges, for the contests 
of gladiators; and Marcus Aurelius, as one would have 
expected from his humanity, enacted. a similar law with 
reference to the combats of wild beasts. Antoninus Pius 
permitted slaves to be sold, rather than punished, who took 


’ Servi ob violatum contubernium adulterii nomine accusari non 
possunt. (Z£., 23. C.J, ix.9. Ad. leg. Ful.de Adult.) 

* Sine tormentis, testimonium ejus credendum non est. (Lip 25,0a8 
DXXII. De Testz.) 


REFORMS HON DE he LHL STOICS, 51 


refuge at altars or before sacred images. The recourse of 
law was gradually had to prevent other abuses of the servile 
class ; thus the application of torture to servants on trial 
or as witnesses was by degrees disused. Those blessed 
words so much used by the Stoical jurists, “ favor libertatis,” ! 
the presumption of liberty, came to have more and more 
power on legislation. This was especially true of the 
interpretation of wills. It was not permitted to bestow 
liberty for a certain number of years; “once free, always 
free,’ was the motto. If a slave had partly paid for his 
liberty, and his time of manumission had come, it was not 
held humane to cause delay through a question of pecu- 
niary profit.? | | 

Nothing shows . better how comparatively superficial 
the influence of Stoicism was, how confined to the Roman 
cultivated classes, than the unhappy position of the slave, 
both in custom and law, through all the reign of this noble 
philosophy. Even the influence of Christianity, when 
united with the government, had a long and often defeated 
struggle to ameliorate the lot of the unhappy victims of 
man’s greed and cruelty. 


The union of the Christian Church with the State under 
_ Constantine we regard as one of the great blunders of the 
historical Church, which has drawn after it a long train 
of evils, whose ,effects are even yet experienced. Could 
Christianity have been permitted to grow, as it did under 
the Apostles, in little voluntary associations of believers, 
unconnected with the civil power and with a simple organi- 
zation, we should not have had, indeed, the grand spectacle 
of an apparently converted imperial court, and an official 


1 Ulpian. (XI. De fd. 12b.). 
2 Neque humanum fuerit ob rei pecuniariz questionem libertati 
moram fieri. (U/pzan.) 


52 GESTANCH Wa STi 


hierarchy, and a Church supported by armies and governed 


| by warriors and courtiers, and of vast populations suddenly 
_made into nominal Christians-—but we should have been 


/ 


| saved a paganized peasantry, a corrupt priesthood, a hier- 


'archy full of greed and ambition, ages of blood and 


religious warfare, and a Church which persecuted both 
science and differing opinions. The Christian faith would 
have grown up where it belongs—in quiet, humble places 
—and have reformed manners and morals before it took — 
hold of legislation. Christ's principles would have been a 
spiritual power in the world, not a form or an institution, 
and would thus have finally permeated society. So far 
from regarding the rapid spread of the Christian religion in 
the Roman world as a sign of its Divine origin, and an 
evidence of its triumph, we consider it as almost a fatal 
occurrence, and as having impeded the spread of Christ’s 
real truth ever since. 

We are aware of the very strong arguments presented by 
liberal Catholic writers for the early union of State and 
Church. It could not but be productive of some good in a 
barbarous, age. But the present spiritual condition of a 
large part of Europe, is a proof how great was the mistake 
then made. The best effect of this union was seen in legis- 
lation. A new spirit began at once to influence Roman law. 
We only claim that this influence would have been more 
thorough and more lasting had it more generally pervaded 
society first, and reached the law-givers through the people. 
/~Whatever motives Constantine himself may have had in - 
his change of faith, the jurists who framed his legislation 
were evidently inspired and influenced by Christianity, 
In laws relating to slavery, we hear of being “imbued 
with Christian discipline”! as a reason for humanity; of 


Christiana disciplina imbutus. (Cod. Theod., ix. 12.) 


EMANCIPATION AS A RELIGIOUS DUTY. 53 


emancipating in church with “religious purpose,”? and 
numerous other expressions which indicate the new forces 
working on the law-givers. The “ Day of the Lord” has 
become a day appropriate to emancipation and to a rest 
from all litigation ;? and emancipation in church has the 
same legal force with the formal emancipation of a Roman 
citizen. The official setting free of a slave became com- 
mon as an act of piety or gratitude to God at recovery 


from illness, at the birth of a child, at death, or in willsy 


Many charters and epitaphs bore the expression of 
“liberty for the benefit of the soul.” 

The Church early included a prayer in its liturgy “for 
them that suffer in bitter bondage.” The burial inscrip- 
tions and pictures recently made known, often show 
the masters standing before the Good Shepherd, with 
a band of their slaves, liberated at death, pleading for 
them at the last judgment.? But scarcely any Christian 
inscription speaks of the dead, asa “slave” or “freed- 
man,” but’only of the “slave of Christ”; or the “ freed- 
man of Christ”; as if human slavery could not even 
be mentioned in the kingdom of God. 

A series of remarkable laws under Constantine showed 
the new spirit working upon legislation. In 312 A.D. a 
law was passed declaring the poisoning of a slave or 
the tearing his body with the nails of a wild beast, or 
branding him, to be homicide. In 314, liberty was 
declared a right which could not be taken away: sixty 
years of captivity could not take from the free-born 
the right of demanding liberty. In 316, Constantine 


1 Religiosa mente in Ecclesia. (C. 7., ix. 7.) 

2 Ut in die Domini, imancipare et manumittere liceat, relique 
cause vel lites quiescant. (C. 7.,1.2: C. 3, 11.) 

3 Le Blant, Juscript. Chrét. Acad. de Sc. ete. 

4 De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Chrét., 1866; and La Roma sott. Christ., 
tom. ili. 1877. 


ert 


54 GES LAV CHAE dl 


writes to an archbishop: “It has pleased me for a long 
time to establish that in the Christian Church, masters 
can give liberty to their slaves provided they do it in 
presence of all the assembled people and with the assist- 
ance of Christian priests, and provided that, in order to 
preserve the memory of the fact, some written document 
informs where they sign as parties or as witnesses.”! In 
321, he directs that “he who under a religious feeling 
has given a just liberty to his slaves in the bosom of 
the Christian Church, will be thought to have made a 
gift of a right similar to Roman citizenship.” But this 
privilege is only granted to those who emancipate under 
theeyes <of ‘the priests nige2oyanoue laws defined 
methods by which persons whose liberty is assailed, 
even after sentence, may present new proofs of liberty 
amcMmeenire sit..* 

The progress of legal emancipation under the Chris- 
tian emperors was slow but certain. Each new ruler 
enacted some measure which made emancipation easier. 
The informer against those guilty of certain capital 
offences, became free. Theodosius the Great freed those 
who had been circumcised by the Jews, and those who 
informed against a deserter; and the emperor Zeno, 
those who joined the monastic life with the consent of 
their masters. | 

A few words from the priest, even away from the 
church, would manumit the slave? 

The law threw every obstacle in the way of separating 
families. “Who can bear,” says the Theodosian Code, 


Cer er isis, MDA otits be. 

Pom AM Ded tit TOP A, sh 

* Lbid., lib. i. tit. 13, 1. 2, ddd. Nov. et Cod. Theod, lib. iv. 
Lipieans ads 

* De Manumissionibus in ecclesia. (/é¢d., lib. iv. Uy fee) 


HUMANTING TOWARDS ATAL. SLAVES. 55 


“to see children separated from parents, brothers from 
sisters, wives from husbands?” } 

The master was held legally as a murderer, if by 
torture or branding he caused death, after the cruel cus- 
toms of the horrid barbarians.’ 

Let the reader compare this with the command of 
one of the purest of the Stoical jurists. “If by chance 
there is doubt . . . for the sake of discovering the 
truth, let hereditary slaves be tortured.” ?® 

In 441 A.D. a church council (Orange) enacted that 
a slave once emancipated in church, could not be made 
either slave or serf again, without incurring ecclesiastical 
censures, 

Sustinian's Reforms.—It is, however, finally under 
Justinian that the great moral power of Christianity 
begins most to be felt in the Roman law upon slavery. 
The Institutes (quoting indeed an older law) speak of 
that age as one of special humanity, when no one Is per- 
mitted to be cruel to his slave without legal authority.* 

All presumptions are to be now in “ favour of liberty.” 
Thus if there chance to be several owners of a slave, 
the will of any one could emancipate, and the others are 
forced to accept compensation at a reduced valuation.? 

The drift is everwhere towards “the inestimable value® 
of liberty.”7 Slavery was suppressed as a penalty. “We 

1 Quis ferat liberos a parentibus, a fratribus sorores, a viris con- 
juges, segregari. (Lib. ii. tit. 24.) 

2 SAevitia immanium barbarorum, (Lib. ix. tit. 1Z:) 

3 Si fortasse de filiis aliqua dubitatio habeatur, ut veritas inveniri 
possit, torqueri servi hereditarii jubentur. (Paul. Sent., v. 16). 

4 Sed hoc tempore, nullis hominibus licet sine causa legibus cognita 
in servos stos supra modum sevire. (/7s¢., p. 109). 

67) C. L., vil..7... De Comm, Serve. Manum. 

6 Quum libertas inaestimabilis res sit. (/s¢, I. vi. 7). 


7 Pro libertate, quam et favere et tueri Romanis legibus. . . 
peculiare est. (Conim de Manum). 


56 GESTA CHRISTI. 


do not transfer” says the Imperial law-giver,! “persons 
from a free condition into a servile—we who have so 
much at heart to raise slaves to liberty.” He liberates 
the mutilated; and those who had served in the army 
with the knowledge of their master, became as frecborn. 
Liberty was a reward to certain informers against cer- 
tain offences. The marriage of slaves was strengthened, 
and the marriage of a free woman with a foreign slave 
was not forbidden ; a freeman could marry a slave woman 
( by first freeing fee 
“ “A slave who was ordained priest became free by the 
act usually with the consent of the master. The monas- 
teries became refuges of slaves. Justinian’s Code re- 
quired every slave entering a monastery to pass a novi- 
tiate of three years, during which he might be claimed ; 
if he was proved guilty of theft, he was to be dciwered 
up to his master, but to suffer no further injury. If no- 
thing was proved against him, and he was not claimed, 
at the end of three years he was considered “to belong 
to the common Master of all.” A slave-priest, if he re- 
nounced his sacred office, became slave again. 

The old law had fixed a limit to the age under which 
a bondman could be freed, and the number who could be 
thus emancipated :-it demanded of freedmen a maturity 
of thirty years, and created different degrees between 
the citizen and slave. Justinian abolished all this scale. 
Legacies and testamentary provisions made before the 
final will, had been considered null. The new code 
changed this in favour of liberty. The dying man in 
his last moments, could set free the infant in the bosom 
of its mother. If the heir received directions to free one 
slave, all became free. The new code takes the smallest 


1 Nov., xxii. & 


HUMANITY UNDER CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE. 57 


indication as sign of the master’s purpose to free his 
slave. The marriage of the master with a bondwoman 
freed and legitimated all the children; and even without 
marriage, if a slave had the position of wife, she became 
free with her children, and equally so if bequeathed as 
a wife to a freedman. The law gave a new value to all 
familiar modes of enfranchisement, whether by letter or 
in presence of friends; by abandonment, or by covering 
the slave with a symbolic bonnet at the funeral of his 
master, or by marriage. The code, with a certain. en- 
thusiasm uncommon in such dry documents, declared its 
purpose “to have the Republic frequented by neces 
rather than liberated slaves.” ! 

Among other laws, one act made the violation of a 
slave-woman an equal offence with crime committed: upon 
a free—punishable by death. The moveable property of 
bondmen became their own property, and with it they 
often purchased their liberty. 

Other acts made the killing of a slave with malice 
aforethought, homicide; and the death of a slave after 
certain barbarous punishments, equivalent to the same 
offence. Masters also were enjoined to send their sick 
and useless slaves to the hospital.? 

We find, too, an expression in the code, as if an in- 
fluence from the new Religion of humanity, “ the intuition 
of humanity.” ® 

Slaves or freedmen could arrive at the most important 
offices, provided the masters did not oppose. 

The legal weakening of slavery proceeded by various 
steps, such as the forbidding the sale of new-born in- 


1 In nostra Republica . . . quum nobis cordi est, ingenuis 
magis hominibus, quam a libertis, eam frequentari. (De Bouts.) 

2% Codex. TH: 

Pei eteX Li,! 1X. 


58 GESTA CARES. 


fants; the introducing new modes of emancipation by 
the Christian Church; the delay afforded in proof of 
liberty and the iegal presumption in its favour; the 
privileges granted in reclaiming it,.and many precautions 
taken to prevent slavery from being used for purposes 
of unchastity and of crime. 

Reforms under other Emperors—Under the Emperor 
Leo (717 A.D.) all slaves on imperial domains were allowed 
to do with their property as they chose; the law thus at 
once recognising the ownership of property by a large body 
of bondmen. Again, the marriage of a free woman and 
a slave was recognised as legal. The woman could buy 
her husband, to associate him in her liberty, or share his 
servitude till the death of the master, which at once 
freed *them and their children; or the man could free 
himself by labour for a term of years, which term was 
fixed by law. The same rules applied to slave marriage, 
if one of the parties became free. Many Christian freed- 
men married noble-born women (feminz clarissimz}), 
One great source of slavery was dried up in this age of 
“misery” by a law forbidding a freeman to alienate his 
liberty. Other acts encouraged emancipation. A. slave- 
child held over the sacred font of baptism by the master, 
his wife or son, became free in the act. A servant taken 
prisoner by the enemy, was lost to his master; and if he 
was returned to Roman territory, he became a freeman, 
provided he had suffered in the public service. By a law 
under Basil (867) it was declared that if a property reverted 
to the state, the slaves in it became free, If a man died 
intestate, two-thirds of his property fell to his natural heirs, 
and one-third went to the state: in this one-third were 
reckoned the slaves, who thus became free. “It would 


* De Rossi, La Roma sott, Renan, MM. Aur. c. 11. Tertull., Ad 
uUx0r., 11, 8. ’ 


GRADUAL EMANCIPATION. 59 


be an outrage,” says the law, “to the holiness of God, 
to the wisdom of the prince, and to the conscience of 
man, not to permit the death of the master to break the 
yoke of servitude.” 

In the tenth century the state preserved a right over 
the sale of prisoners and of slaves. In 1098, Alexius 
Comnenus was obliged to invoke the great principle of 
Christianity, “One God, one Faith, one: Baptism,’ and 
order all slaves to be freed to whom their masters had 
refused the benediction of the Christian Church. Legisla- 
tion became more severe against bondage: the bondman 
could produce witnesses in favour of his freedom and 
opposing testimony was not received. If a person was 
claimed asa slave and could produce witnesses of good 
character in his favour, his oath could annul the suit 
(1094 A.D.). Manuel I. (1143) proclaimed freedom to all 
fallen into slavery through the sale of property, or who 
had been forced to sell themselves from reasons of 
poverty. 

Slavery is alluded to in the Eastern empire in 1344, 
1358, and 1394. It existed in Greece till 1437. 

Among other terrible results of the pauperism of the 
Roman empire, the masters were in the habit of forcing 
freemen to contracts which alienated their independence. 
To check this, Manuel Comnenus declared free all who 
had been born in liberty. 

In the ninth century, as we stated before, is the first 
‘formal mention of a command of the Church against 
slavery itself. They are the words of St. Theodore of 
Stude. “Thou shalt possess no slave, neither for domestic 
service nor for the work of the fields ; for man is made 
in the image of God.” 

No one can carefully study this long series of laws, from 
~ Constantine to the tenth century, in regard to slavery, 


60 GHSTACCH IRS a, 


without clearly seeing the effect of Christianity. It is 
true that the unjust institution still survived, and some 
of its cruel features remained; but all through this period 
the new spirit of humanity is seen struggling against it, 
even in legislation, which is always the last to feel a new 
moral power in society. The very language of the acts 
speaks of the inspiration of the Christian faith; and the 
idea which lay at the bottom of the reforms, the value 
of each individual, and his equality to all others in the 
sight of God, was essentially Christian. 

But laws are often far behind the practices of a com- 
munity. The foundation idea of Christ's principles com- 
pelled his followers to recognise the slave as equal with 
the master. They sat side by side in church, and partook 
of the communion together. By the civil law, a master 
killing his slave accidentally by excessive punishment, 
was not punished; but in the church, he was excluded 
from communion. The chastity of the slave was strictly 
guarded by the church ; slave-priests were free. The 
festivals of religion—the Sundays, fast-days and days of 
joy—were carly connected in the Church with the eman- 
cipation of those in servitude. The consoling words of 
Christ, repeated from mouth to mouth, and the hope which 
now dawned on the world through Him, became the 
especial comfort of that great multitude of unhappy 
persons,—the Roman bondsmen. The Christian teachers 
and clergymen became known as “the brothers of the 
slave”: ’ and the slaves themselves were called “the 
freedmen of Christ.” 2 


1 Lactantius, Dez Just, lib. v. Also St. Chrys. (Hom.) (xxii. 2 
Ep. ad Eph.) No Christian is a slave; those born again are all 
brothers. 2 Acta St. Fustin, 


CHAPTER VI. 
SLAVES IN CRUEL AND LICENTIOUS SPORTS. 


THE full power of Christianity over Roman slavery can 
only be fully recognised by also studying its influence on 
the cruel or licentious shows and games, for which the 
slaves especially furnished the victims and the debauched 
actors. 

The highest gratification which an eminent Roman could 
furnish to the populace, was in some bloody or licentious 
show. The Stoics spoke of the gladiatorial games with 
contempt or reproval, but their censure never reached the 
masses. 

Cicero asks how a cultivated man can possibly take 
pleasure in seeing a weak man torn by a strong animal, 
or a splendid brute transfixed by the spear of a well-armed 
gladiator: and Tacitus dismisses the cruel Drusus, in 
one of his condensed epithets, as rejoicing too much in 
cheap blood:? Cesar is said to have had 320 pairs of 
gladiators at once in the arena, and to add to the scenic 
effect, the bloody struggles were at night. 

Trajan surpassed all in forcing 10,000 unhappy prisoners 
and gladiators to contend for: life in the Roman amphi- 
theatre; the bloody and brutal sport lasted 123 days. 


1 Sed quz potest homini esse polito delectatio, quum aut homo 
imbecillus a valentissima bestia laniatur etc. (dd Div.) 
2 Vili sanguine nimio gaudens. (Awz., I, 76.) 
61 


62 GESTAL CARIST, 


Constantine, in the very year before his acceptance of 
Christianity, exposed a vast multitude of prisoners to wild 
beasts in the amphitheatre, and glutted the people with 
the sight of blood! Under the thorough reform which 
Christian teaching has introduced in the world, in the. 
matter of bloody sports, we cannot conceive the passion 
for them among the Roman populace, a passion which 
centuries of teaching and example scarcely broke up. - 

It is related of one Prefect of Rome, Symmachus (392 
A.D.), that he desired to make a special celebration of a 
birthday of his little son (parvuli nostri) and for that pur- 
pose held in reserve a large troop of Saxon prisoners, who 
were to be slaughtered by wild animals in the arena. To 
the intense disappointment of the populace and the grief 
of the Prefect, our savage ancestors, on the very day of the 
hoped-for festival, all strangled each other (fractas sine 
laqueo fauces). The worthy Prefect could only resign 
himself to the consolations of philosophy.? It was re- 
served for a Christian to remind this philosopher of his 
brutality, in the well-put apopthegm: “No one should 
perish in the city whose punishment is an amusement.” 3 

It was the peculiar duty of Roman magistrates to 
provide cruel sports for the people; many made a trade 
of it. , 

The early Christians and the Fathers waged a continual 
struggle against these bloody shows. So strong was the 
passion for them, that it is related by Augustine of one 
convert, that he was forced to the spectacle by his family, 
but carefully covered his eyes, when a shout from the 


* Tantam captivorum multitudinem bestiis objecit, etc, (Paz. Con. 
(LUE 3,9A 1) 3 1.8;) 

2 Sequor sapientis exemplum. (Sywene, LEP eh eA Or) 

* Nullus in urbe cadat, cujus sit poena voluptas. (Prud. contra 
Symit., 11, 1126.) 


BLOODY SHOWS. 7 63 


multitude caused him to open them in the midst of some 
bloody scene, and immediately the old savage thirst for 
blood was aroused, and he became as wildly eager for 
slaughter as the heathen Romans, and henceforth was an 
outcast from the Church.! Even as late as the time of 
Salvian (450 A.D.) the converts weré led away to these 
shows, and this great preacher thunders against those 
renegade Christians who find their highest pleasure in 
seeing men die in the arena, or, what was worse than 
death, torn and eaten by wild beasts.? In the East the 
cruel games ceased with the reign of Theodosius, though 
combats of beasts still continued. Their final abolition 
in the West, by the heroism of the monk Telemachus 
(404), who leaped into the arena and gave his own life for 
the victims, is well known. 

The first effect of the new spirit on legislation is seen 
in a law of Constantine, as early as 325 A.D. ‘‘ Bloody 
spectacles,” he says, “in our present state of civil tran- 
quillity and domestic peace, do not please us, wherefore 
we order that ali-gladiators be prohibited from carrying 
on their profession.” ° 

He also forbade criminals to be sent to the Ashe 
theatre,—a practice he had formally sanctioned ten years 
before. 

1 Confessions, lib. vi. 8. For so soon as he saw that blood, he 
drank down savageness ; nor turned away, but fixed his eyes, drinking 
in phrensy and madness, and was delighted with that guilty fighting 
and intoxicated with the bloody pastime. Nor was he now the man 
he came, but one of the throng he came unto; yea, a true associate 
of them that brought him hither. 

2 Ubi summum deliciorum genus est mori homines, aut quod morte 
gravius, acerbiusque, lacerari, expleri ferarum alvos humanis carni- 
bus. (De Gud. Det., vi.) 

3 Cruenta spectacula in otio civili et domestica quiete, non 


placuit ; qua propter omnino gladiatores esse prohibemus. (Cod. 
Thee, \xv.\ tit, 12, 1: 5.) 


64 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Human Sacrifices.—Besides the influence of Christi- 
anity on bloody sports, it should not be forgotten that in 
the Roman empire, and wherever it has had sway, it 
has done away with human sacrifices, Whenever, in the 
earlier history, dangers approached Rome, foreign captives 
were burned in the forum, though at the same period a 
poet could say that God was ever gentle and kindred to 
man.’ Even in the time of Pliny there were sacrifices of 
human beings, though Seneca was proclaiming that “man 
ought to be sacred to man.”? Still later, emperors like 
Commodus and Elagabalus believed that they gave the 
highest pleasure to the gods by sacrificing children of 
noble birth and beauty. 

It need scarcely be said that such cruelties passed away 
under the faintest light from the Religion of Love. Not 
only in the Roman empire, but in all countries where 
Christianity has any influence, have these barbarities ac- 
companying the religious sentiment ceased to exist. 

Licentious Shows.—The cruel sports of Rome were not 
the only source of the degradation of Roman society. 


The exhibition of licentious shows and immoral plays had » 


a profound influence. The extremes to which these were 
carried cannot even be explained in modern writings. In 
fact, few classical scholars who have not waded through the 
disgusting mire of a large part of Roman literature, can 
have even an idea of the depth of obscenity and immor- 
ality which it reached. Athenzus, Petronius, Apuleius (in 
his lighter works), Juvenal, and many others, only show 
how debased even genius and talent may become under 
such influences as so much of the Greek and Roman 
religions furnished. - Even the universal suffering and ruin 
of the Roman empire had no influence on the public 


1 Mite et cognatum est homini Deus. (Szézus, iv. 793.) 
2 Boisster. 


a ety 


PELRIANGS Ospina e CHRISTIANS. 65 


appetite for these enjoyments. In Salvian’s bitter epi- 
gram, the empire “ridet et moritur,’ laughs while it is 
dying, 

It is not strange that the early Christians came to have 
towards these shows somewhat of the feelings which the 
English Puritans entertained towards all dramatic exhibi- 
tions. They were not only offensive to the new ideas 
of purity spreading through the world, but they were 
products of and associated with the idolatrous faith of 
the day. The Fathers and early disciples set themselves 
especially to free great classes of human beings who were 
the peculiar victims of these degrading customs—the 
slaves of the stage. 

The effect of their spirit even upon a_half-converted 
Roman, like Constantine, is striking. Much of his legis- 
lation has the sound of Puritan rigidity and purity. A 
public show of the most indecent description, a great 
favourite with the populace, called Mazuma, wherein, 
among other licentiousness, nude women bathed before the 
crowd, was utterly forbidden and denounced as “ fcedum 
atque indecorum spectaculum”; yet, says wisely the law, 
“we allow ludicrous arts to be practised, lest sadness be 
produced by excessive restriction.”! In 385 several laws 
were passed against the profession of female musicians. 
who were frequently seduced, and whose business was a 
means of vice. Theodosius forbade judges and magistrates 
to be present at theatrical shows after noon, for it was 
in that part of the day that indecent plays were exhibited. 
At length all spectacles were forbidden on Sunday, and 
the prohibition was extended still further to saints’ days 
by Theodosius III. A general endeavour appears in all 
this legislation to withdraw from such professions all whom 

1 Ludicros artes concedimus agitari, ne ex nimia harum restric- 


tione, tristia generetur. (Cod. Theod., \xx. tit. 6. 1.2.) 
F 


66 GESTAMCHRIS TI. 


poverty or slavery kept in them. In 343 a law forbade 
procurers from selling Christian female slaves to any 
except to Christian masters,! and authorized priests and 
all Christians summarily to deliver any Christian women 
who were about to be handed over to prostitution,? 
and on their complaint they could be brought before the 
court and delivered from misery. No Christian woman, 
free or slave, could be forced to serve as a prostitute 
on the stage; and if a slave, could be freed at once on 
appeal. 

It may here be remarked, that in 439 a law of Theo- 
dosius suppressed the profession of the leno, or “ procurer,” 
in Constantinople; though no legislation could cure the 
deep-seated disease of Roman society. 

Under Constantine, the crime of violence upon a woman 
which had formerly been punished only when the victim 
demanded redress, and was then considered merely as a 
loss of services or property inflicted on the father of the . 
woman, received now the penalty of death, even if the 
one injured did not bring action. 

Fustinian’s Reforms—The Roman law, as codified under | 
Justinian, shows a still greater disposition to deliver all 
Christians who were bound to these foul trades In 
case of approaching death, it was provided that if the last 
Sacraments were administered, and still the slaves. of the 
stage recovered, then these women were freed from their 


1 Cod. Theod., \xv. tit. TO; Lyd s 

* Lenones, patres et dominos qui suis filiis vel ancillis peccande 
necessitatem imponunt nec jure frui domini, nec tanti criminis 
libertate gaudere. (Cod. Lheod., \xv. tit. 8, 1. 26.) 

* Queecunque ex his jus modi /ece progenite, scenica officio decli- 
nare . . . deputentur. (Cod, Theod., xv.) 

Quicumque Christianus sit in quolibet crimine deprehensus, ludo 
non adjucitur. (Cod. Theod, ix. 40.) 


LICENTIOUSNESS RESTRAINED. 67 


bonds to the theatre. But even then, public officials were 
bound to sit in judgment as to their need of the last 
sacraments. The stern Roman law held them bound to 
these degrading occupations by a “natural bond.” They 
were not even considered worthy of suffering the penalties 
of adultery. The Christian law forbade them to be taken 
back to the stage if they had become Christians and were 
leading a worthy life If, however, they fell again into 
their old vices, they were forced to retake their old pro- 
fession, and could be absolved from it no more until old 
age drove them from the stage. Justinian also declared all 
engagements retaining women by force on the stage as 
null and void. The archbishops were required, in union 
with the magistrates, to watch over the execution of this 
law. | | 

When at length these unfortunate women, slaves of 
sensuality, were excluded from the public stage, they were 
employed in private festivals, until Theodosius was com- 
pelled to forbid by law women from being sold or trained 
for these social entertainments. Even as late as the 
eleventh century, the Council of France condemned the 
presence of the clergy at fetes where such professional 
actors were employed. 

The Church carefully excluded from communion all who 
had any connection with licentious sports ; and so powerful 
was the new feeling of purity, that even obscene statues in 
public places were forbidden by law.’ | 

It is a part of this new reign of chastity and humanity, 
that the employment of mutilated persons, as attendants, 
was forbidden by the Church, and the maiming of them 


1 Quas melior vivendi usus vinculo xaturalis conditionis evolvit, 
retrahi vetamus. (Cod. 7/., xv.) 

2 Neque unquam posthac liceat in loco honesto inhonestas adstare 
personas. (Cod. Th., xv.) 


68 GESTACCIIRI S11; 


was attended with the severest penalties. A slave muti- 
lated became free.! 

The early Christians not only attacked and weakened 
slavery by freeing this unfortunate class, who were bound 
to licentious professions, but their spirit of humanity led 
to a ransoming of captives, which assumed considerable 
importance. The laws encouraged this in the highest 
degree. The Theodosian Code especially exhorts Christians 
who are near these captives, to take pains in regard to 
their redemption ;? and the commentator speaks of the 
ransoming of prisoners as an act of special generosity. 
Whole populations were ransomed, and it became one of 
the first duties of the Church “to set the captive free.” 
The wealth of private individuals, and the treasures of 
the churches, were continually used for this purpose. One 
saint (Paul) is said to have delivered himself up to slavery 
for the sake of saving the son of a widow from captivity. 

It was a favourite proverb that “to buy a slave is to gain — 
a soul.” 4 

The Christians equally dried up another source of slavery 
by steadily and consistently opposing, as we shall show. 
later, the abandonment and exposition of children. Their 
charity, also, constantly saved families from the depths of 
pauperism which were opening ; for, as the eloquent Salvian 
says, the Roman state in the fifth century, owing to its 
wasteful financial system and enormous taxation, was 
“dying as if of strangulation.”® The tendency, too, of the 


1 Novell., cxiii. 

* Christianos proximorum locorum, volumus hujus rei  solicitu- 
dinem gerere. (Coz. Theod. v. 5, 1.) 

° Preecipua liberalitas redimere captivos. 

4 Const. Apost., 11, 62. 

* Quum Romana republica, vel jam mortua, vel certe extremum 
spiritum agens . . . tributorum vinculis, quasi manibus strangulata, 
moriatur (De Gud. Dei, iv. 1.) 


REHABILITATION OF LABOUR. 69 


Christian belief must have continually raised the poor by 
elevating their sense of their own dignity—a sense which 
in all ages has worked against the degrading tendencies of 
poverty, and would therefore preserve a population from 
falling into slavery. Christ and the Apostles taught, by 
example and words, the value and dignity of labour; and 
a cardinal doctrine of Christian morals was the importance 
of industry. The word operative (opferarius) became ele- 
vated in public esteem, and Christian working men and 
women are praised in the epitaphs for being good workers.} 
In fact, throughout the Roman empire a grand rehabi- 
litation of labour began under Christianity, which has 
never ceased. All the useless servants of Roman society 
—the parasite, the pimp, the circus rider, the gladiator, 
the debauched actor, the representative of indecent amuse- 
ments, the servant of idols, the object. of disgusting and 
unnatural pleasures, the low and obscene comedian and 
prostitute—were changed by the new Faith into industrious 
producers and -workers.? Work became honoured under 
the new religion. Christ was reproached by the assailants 
of Christianity as being born of a “working mother” 
(operarize matris) ; and the Christian ecclesr@ became Wiaae 
fraternities of free labourers and competitors of the great 
slave-estates.® 

We have already remarked that the word servus* 
seldom occurs on a Christian epitaph; as if the believer 
felt that in the kingdom of Christ all were free. A 
slave, when examined before a judge, not unfrequently 
replied, “I am notaslave: lama Christian—Christ has 
fgeere mic.” 


1 De Rossi,  Amatrix pauperorum et operaria.” 

2 See Allard, Les Esclaves Chrét. 

3 See De Rossi, La Roma sotter. Christ., tomo iil. 1877. 
{Le Biant, fuscr. Chréz., etc... 1., 119. 5 [biel 


70 GESTA PCH RIS: 


All these profound moral and legal influences worked 
against Roman slavery. But the fearful “ misery” of the 
empire still sustained it. So profoundly was Roman 
society disorganized by its own vices, by bad govern- 
ment, absurd finance, civil war, the invasion of barbarians, 
and universal poverty among the working classes, that 
bondage became often the least of many evils threaten- 
ing, : | 
Serfdom.—In such universal disorder, it is not unnatural] 
that an intermediate state should have formed itself be- 
tween freedom and servitude. ~The peasants and ‘poor 
farmers would find themselves safer under the protection 
of a larger cultivator, to whom they bound themselves 
for certain obligations ; or.the state settled such colonists 
(colonz) on the large farms, holding them bound to the soil, 
but with many personal rights; or, under these moral 
forces of which we have been speaking, the personal slave 
was gradually transformed into the.serf bound to the 
soil. 

The serfs or colont began to appear after Constantine ; | 
they were especially found on the frontiers of the em- 
pire, and in the Gauls, Thrace and Illyria. They were 
sold with the land; their only obligation being a small 
rent. They could make contracts, marry, and even acquire 
property under certain conditions. 

Yet the new law, modified by Christianity, protected 
even the serfs. Justinian was careful not to accept the 
avowals of coluni who would become adscriptitit,—those 
more closely bound to the soil and liable to a tribute,— 
but demanded other testimony, lest “freemen might fall 
into an inferior state” from temporary misfortune. He 
abolished also the legal distinction which existed be- 
tween three different classes of freedmen, making them 
all equal before the Roman law. A slave became at once 


OTHE RVINELOENCESION, SLAVERY. 71 


free by any act of his owner signifying an intention of 
bestowing freedom.! 

It is of course understood that many material and even 
economical causes combined with such a moral power as 
Christianity to mitigate and overthrow an ancient abuse, 
like Roman slavery. The province of the moral forces 
is to stimulate the conscience and sympathies ; the result 
may be hastened or long delayed by external influences. 


1 Nullo nec zetatis manumisse, nec dominii manumittentis, nec in 
modo manumissionis discrimine habito. (C. Z., xix. 17, 1.) 


CHAPTER VII. 
EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN. 


SLAVERY in the Roman world, as we have said, was in 
part sustained by a practice so revolting and inhuman as 
hardly to be comprehensible to modern ideas—the sys- 
tematic exposure or abandonment of the children of the 
poor, and of female or defective children by the rich. So 
completely had luxury eaten away the natural instincts 
in one class, and so deep and degrading was the misery in 
another, that parents were found willing continually to 
abandon their offspring to the worst of destinies, in order 
to escape inconvenience, anxiety or burden ;—these little 
ones, be it remembered, being not usually the fruit of 
illicit connections, but the children of legal marriage. | 

One of the most powerful of the natural instincts and 
affections was, throughout a wide multitude, utterly sub- 
verted by the low moral tone of the then civilized world. 
There are innumerable allusions to this inhuman treatment 
of young children throughout Latin literature. In two 
different comedies or dialogues, the husband on starting 
upon a journey is represented as ordering his wife who is 
soon to give birth to a babe, to destroy it, if it prove a 
girl; and the plot of one turns on the wife’s foolish weak- 
ness in exposing rather than killing the fémale infant. 
It has often been observed that the famous apopthegm of 

' Apuleius, J7ez., lib. x. Terence, Andr., Activ. scene 5. Heaut., 


Act ill. scene 5. 
72 


EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN. 73: 


humanity, “I am aman, and nothing of man is foreign to 
me,” which called out such applause in the Roman theatre, 
is uttered in this play by the very father who had rebuked 
the mother for thus sparing the child. 

Plautus,! alludes to the custom of exposing the girl to 
death, without any especial condemnation. Lucian speaks 
of it in his “ Courtesans.” 


Stobaeus ? says: “The poor man raises ae sons, Bit Eile apie: 


daughters, even if one is poor, we expose.” Quintilian’s 
apopthegm is that, “to kill a man is often held to “be 
a crime, but to kill one’s own children is sometimes 
considered a beautiful action among the Romans ;” and 
he admits that the exposed little ones rarely survive.’ 
Ovid gives a pathetic picture of the new born whose first 
day was its last, exposed to wild beasts; and describes 
those who flit about in the night, seeking for these un- 
- fortunate little creatures for the worst of purposes.* Pliny ° 
speaks coolly of those who hunt for the brains and marrow 
of infants, probably for superstitious or medicinal pur- 
poses. 

Seneca gives this horrible description of the mutilation 
to which unfortunate children were exposed: “ Portentos 
foetus extinguimus ; liberos quoque si debiles, monstrosi- 
que editi sunt, mergimus. Non ira, sed ratio est, a sanis, 
inutilia secernere.’ (Monstrous offspring we destroy ; 
children too, if weak and unnaturally formed from birth, 
we drown. It is not anger, but reason, thus to separate 
the useless from the sound.) (Dera lit5)) 


1 Dat eam puellam ei servo exponendam ad necem. (Act i. 
scene 3.) 

2 Seri, 75+ 

3 Quint. Dec., 306, Vi. 

4 Ovid., vi. 91, Ep. xii. 

6 Alii medullas crurum querunt, et cerebrorum infantum, (P/z7. 
Hist. Nat., lib. 28, c. 2.) 


74 CGholA CHATS TT, * 


In another work (Controversi, lib. v., 33) he denounces 
the horrible practice, common in Rome, of maiming these 
unfortunate children, and then offering them to the gaze 
of the compassionate. He describes the miserable little 
creatures, with shortened limbs, broken joints and curved 
backs, exhibited by the villanous beggars who had gathered 
them at the Lactarian column, and then deformed them: 
“Volo nosse,” “I should like to know,” says the moralist, 
with a burst of human indignation, “illam calamitatum 
humanarum officinam—illud infantum spoliarium !’—*“ that 
workshop of human misfortunes—those shambles of in- 
fants!” 

On the day that Germanicus died, says Suetonius 
(Calig., n. 5), “Subverse Detim are, partus conjugum 
expositi,” parents exposed their new born babes. 

The little ones thus abandoned were gathered, some- 
times by witches, to use their bodies in incantations, or 
more frequently by slave-dealers, to train as female slaves 
or prostitutes. In the dialogue by Terence, to which we 
have alluded, the father (Chremes) while reproaching the 
mother for not killing the child, says, “ What did you > 
propose to do? What did you desire? Consider, you 
would have abandoned your daughter to that old witch! 
That is clear enough. To make her, by your help, a slave 
or a prostitute!” 

The exposure in Rome was commonly made by night, 
near the Lactarian column, and in the Velabrum, a parish 
or district in the city, near Mount Aventine. Though 
the father often designed the death of the infant, yet 
some benevolent persons now and then rescued a child, 
who became afterwards distinguished. Several instances of 


* Quam bene viro abste prospectum est? quid voluiste ? cogita! 
Nempe anni illi prodita abste filia est planissime ; 
Per te veluti quaestum faceret, velubi veniret palam. 


SNOLCALOL ROTEL LS. 75 


this are given by classic historians. Quintilian calls on 
his readers to imagine the pitiable fate of the abandoned 
child, exposed to birds of prey and wild beasts ;! and 
Juvenal pictures the fine lady of the day going to the 
Velabrum, to find some infant whom she can substitute 
for her own,—in vain expected,—and thus secure some 
inheritance.” 

With this practice was intimately connected the custom 
of destroying life in its germ, which was so common in 
Roman wealthy society. We need not adduce proofs of 
this well-known crime. 

It is not to be supposed that the instinct of humanity 
before Christianity was utterly silent as to these cruel or 
pernicious habits and practices. A Stoical jurist, Julius 
Paulus, in the time of the Emperor Severus (222-225 A.D.), 
though he could not directly say. that these offences were 
contrary to law, yet ventured to pronounce the mother 
who destroyed life in the womb, or who refused nourish- 
ment, or exposed her offspring in public places, as equally 
cuilty of murder.’ 

The Stoical philosophers, rhetoricians, historians, and 
even the poets, pleaded or declaimed incessantly against 
these crimes. They knew the right. Yet here, as in so 
many other instances in antiquity, there was a fatal want of 
power to carry out the good instincts into practical action. 
The overwhelming poverty of the empire led the poor 
incessantly to these offences, and the rich had found no 
sufficient impulse in the maxims of Stoicism to resist the 

1 Vos ponite ante oculos puerum statim neglectum ; cui mori domi 
expediret, inde nudum corpus, sub ccelo, inter feras et volucres. 
(Dec., 306.) 

2 Sat., vi. 605. 

3 Necare videtur non tantum is qui partum perfocat, sed is qui 
abjecit et qui alimonia denegat, et is qui publicis locis, misericordiz 
causa, exponit, quam ipse non habet. 


76 GES TAVCARIS TT], 


enticements of a selfish cruelty. Some of the more 
humane of the Roman emperors, as we have described 
elsewhere, attempted to cure these evils, by founding 
charities for abandoned and destitute children. It was all 
however in vain. Exposure and child murder and the 
sale of children increased. Nor did the Stoical philosophy 
seem to exert much more influence on legislation than on 
practical morals. There was indeed under Severus a law 
passcd which secured the liberty of a child sold by its 
father from reasons of poverty ; another act punished with 
banishment the creditor who would receive children as 
security for debt, before ascertaining whether they were 
free or not. The Emperor Diseeuas renewed the edicts 
of Severus, and took away from the father all right of 
giving, selling, or pledging his children. 

When the peculiar power of Christianity began to work 
in the Roman empire, it tended, of course, in every way to 
eradicate these horrible evils. Nothing could be further 
from its spirit than such enormities. Human life every- 
where was profoundly sacred to it, and the Church began 
immediately to protect and shelter unfortunate children. 
The Christian Fathers, whose influence in some directions 
is by no means admirable, in this were consistent with the 
teachings of their great Leader and the Founder of their 
Faith. They struggled incessantly against the exposure 
of children. ‘ We have renounced,” says one,’ “Voie 
bloody spectacles, believing that there is no difference 
between regarding a murder and committing it. We hold 
for homicides the women who commit abortion, and we 
think that to expose a child is to kill him.” “One ime Gta. 
says another,” “among all nations only children destined 
for the most horrible purposes, and who are nourished like 
troops of animals; you raise a tribute on these children.” 

1 Athenag. Apol, ; 2 Fustin. Apol. 


tie PALM ERSCON EXPO: OF CHILDREN, 177 


“The wicked alone can expose his children ; for us, this 
impiety only inspires horror: first, because the most of 
these unfortunate little ones are destined for debauch ; 
then, because we would fear the accusation of murder if 
they should die.” Clement says, “ Man is more cruel to 
his offspring than animals.” Tertullian’s appeal is well 
known. 

Felix speaks of children exposed to wild beasts and 
birds, and of these crimes as exceeding the worst of ancient 
times, Lactantius, after an eloquent passage, says, “ These 
parricides allege their extreme poverty and the impossi- 
Diy eoperaising their iamilies: +). teas oe heyy have 
educated their own blood for slavery or the brothel.” ! 
Basil (381 A.D.) preaches against the spectacle of free 
children sold by creditors in the market, and those who 
expose them from reasons of poverty.’ 

Justin pours forth indignation at those who expose 
their offspring, and thus suffer both girls and boys to be 
brought up for the basest purposes.® 

It is unnecessary to give more instances of the unceasing 
protests of humanity, addressed by the early Fathers 
against this cruel practice. 

The great obstacle to reform, however, was the profound 
and terrible pauperism of the Roman empire. Whea, 
under Constantine, the spirit of Christianity began to affect 
Roman legislation on this subject, there came up always 
the practical difficulty—What shall be done with the ex- 
posed child? He will only be preserved from death by 

1 Addixit certe sanguinem suum vel ad servitutem vel ad lupanar. 
eColact, 22 vero cultus lib. vi.) 

* Qui pretextu ad paupertate queesito suos infantes exponunt. 
(Hlome/.) 

3 Quia videmus . . . ad stupra non puellas solum, sed etiam 


masculos produci . . « , pueros ad turpes usus,.etc. (Aol, I, 
27.) 


78 GESLAR CHRISTY, 


those who would make a slave of him. To forbid such 
slavery may only increase the evils of exposure. These 
difficulties constantly modified legislation on this evil. 
Constantine, in the year 315, was obliged to put forth the 
following proclamation: “Let a law be at once promul- 
gated in all the towns of Italy, to turn parents from using 
a parricidal hand on their new-born children, and to dispose 
their hearts to the best sentiments. Watch with care over 
this, that, if a father bring his child, saying, that he cannot 
support it, one should supply him without delay with food 
and clothing; for the cares of the new born suffer no delay, 
and we order that our revenue, as well as our treasure, aid 
in this expense.” And again in 321: “ We have learned 
that the inhabitants of provinces, suffering from scarcity of 
food, sell and put in pledge their children.. We command 
then that those found in this situation, without any per- 
sonal resource, and only being able with great trouble to 
support their childrea, be succoured by our treasury before 
they fall under the blows of poverty; for it is repugnant 
to our morals that any one under our empire should be 
pushed by hunger to commit a crime.” } 

Constantine was subsequently (331) obliged, in view of 
the increasing calamities of the empire, to enact a law that 


any one “taking up” an exposed infant had the power ° 


to adopt him as a child, or to keep him as a slave, and 
the natural father had no right to reclaim him. He was 
however permitted to obtain his child again, if he paid the 
full price, or replaced him by another slave. 

Valentinian (366) proclaimed to the empire the duty of 
parents supporting their children, and threatened punish- 
ment for the crime of exposure; but the unnatural parent 
was not permitted “to claim as his, whom he had led to 
death.” The sale of the children of the poor was not 

1 Cod. Theod.,, xi. tit. 27. 


THE COUNCILS. 70 


absolutely forbidden (from motives of humanity), but if 
reclaimed, parents were to pay the full price and one-fifth 
in addition. 

The Christian councils, which set themselves firmly 
against the crime, as well as the Christian emperors and 
law-givers, were obliged through the fourth, fifth, and sixth 
centuries to leave children to become slaves to save them, 
as the phrase was, “from the teeth of dogs.” | The councils 
repeatedly exhorted the faithful to collect abandoned 
children, and to hold them either in adoption or servitude. 

As early as 325, the Council of Nice ordered the founda- 
tion of hospitals in the principal towns, some of which 
would no doubt shelter the foundlings. The Council of 
Vaison (442) established rules as to the receiving and 
taking care of abandoned little ones. Whoever shall find 
one, shall bring him to the church, where the fact shall 
be formally certified. The following Lord’s Day, the 
clergyman shall announce to the faithful, that a new born 
has been found, and ten days’ time will be granted to the 
parents to recognize and reclaim him. When these for- 
malities had been fulfilled, if any one reclaimed a child 
or calumniated him who received it, he was punished 
with severe ecclesiastical penalties.' No council, however, 
ventured to proclaim the emancipation of the abandoned 
little ones. 

The full effect of the new Faith upon legislation on this 
matter was not seen however before the reign of Justinian. 
This emperor (529-534) took the humane ground that 
the abandoned infant, even if a slave, became free by the 
act; and that if it were found, it became the property 
neither of the finder nor of the parent who had exposed 
it; the law recognized in such children the power of ac- 


1 Acta Conc. Concil. Vas. (ix. 1), De Expositis, etc. 


? 


80 GESTARCA AST, 


quiring property for themselves and of disposing of it in 
favour of their own descendants. 

In 533, the emperor, finding how little legislation was 
lessening this fearful evil, proclaimed as the height of 
cruelty the depriving such unfortunate children’ of their 
liberty, and threatened the authors of the crime with the 
severest penalties. He announced again that all infants 
exposed near churches or in other places, became free by 
this act,’ and declared anew that no right of reclaiming 
existed over these unfortunate beings. The famous Code 
made the act of exposure as much more cruel than 
murder, as it strikes beings more feeble and worthy of 
pity. The Novellz*® speak of the crime as one alien to 
human feeling and which even barbarians could not 
commit. | 

In 553, Justinian invited the Archbishop and Prefect of 
Thessalonica to give to exposed infants all the assistance 
possible, while threatening a severe fine on all who diso- 
beyed.* The law, however, still allowed the father, in 
extreme distress, to sell his child at the moment of birth, 
and permitted the purchaser to retain it in service. 

Houses of mercy for children were founded also by 
Justinian. The churches and Church-charities became 
refuges for this unfortunate class. Christian charity at- 
tempted to alleviate the great evil which law could not 
correct or the usual spirit of humanity prevent. A marble 
vessel was provided for exposed infants at the door of 


* Sancimus nemini licere, sive ab ingenuis genitoribus puer parvu- 
lus procreatus, sive a libertina progenie, sive servili conditione macu- 
latus, expositus sit, enim puerum in suum dominum indicare. 

* Sancimus ut quosque vel in ecclesiis vel in vicis vel aliis locis 
abjectos constiterit, modis omnibus liberi sint. (Cod. Fust., lib, xii.) 

* Crimen a sensu humano alienum, et quod ne ab ullis quidem 
barbaris admitti credibile est, (Nov,, iii.) 

tVOU., 1X 3b. 


FOUNDLINGS. 81 


each church. In a later age, this simple provision of 
humanity was imitated in a manner which produced great 
evils, in the well-known “turning-slide” (tour) of French 
asylums for foundlings. In that time of cruclty and hard- 
ness, however, the church receptacle was for these infants 
the alternative to “servitas aut lupanar,” the slave’s chain 
or the brothel. 

The servants of the Church (matricularii) or the clergy- 
man received the infant, and drew up a legal form, certi- 
fying to abandonment. The latter then enquired, in the 
religious meeting of the faithful, if any would take charge 
of the infant. All these formalities must receive the 
sanction of the archbishop. Often a family was found 
who would consent to adopt the orphan, or, if not, the 
Church took charge of him. In some of the towns, the 
new born thus abandoned was exposed at the doors of 
the church by order of the archbishop, during ten days.! 
If any one recognized the babe, or could designate the 
parents, he was bound to inform the ecclesiastical authori- 
ties. The nurses (nutricarii) who had charge of the infant 
received a formal and legal paper, in which their own 
compensation was fixed, and the circumstances of the 
exposure were stated, and their right recognized of holding, 
if necessary, the child as a slave. 

The churches generally held among their serfs the new 
born thus found and supported. Many churches had 
orphan or foundling refuges connected with them. 

Inthe eighth century, the evil in Europe was at an 
extreme point; the poor sold their offspring, and great 
numbers of children perished. In the Gauls, as well as 
Germany, Italy, and England, needy peasants openly 
offered their children for sale. Many of the saints are 

1 Hest. des Enfanis trouvés, par J. F. Terme et J. B. Monfalcon, 
Paris, 1840. 

G 


82 GOT ARCH Kis LT, 


related to have been thus sold. In the British Islands, 
the traffic became an object of a special mission by Pope 
Gregory, who sought to abolish it. ‘Our Divine Re- 
deemer,” says this pontiff, “in making Himself man, has 
delivered us all from servitude, and has restored us to our 
primeval liberty. Let us imitate His example, in freeing 
from slavery the men who are free by the laws of nature.” ! 

As we have related elsewhere, Christian charity early 
began efforts to relieve these great evils, by the foundation 
of refuges and orphan-asylums. There is an indication of 
one as early as the fifth century in Tréves ;? and another 
was founded in 787, by Archbishop Datheus, at Milan, 
whose words are thus reported: “I desire that as soon as 
an infant shall be exposed in church, he be received by the 
superintendent of the hospital, and entrusted to the care 
of nurses employed for this purpose. These children are to 
learn a trade, and when they have arrived at the age of 
eight years, I desire that they be freed from all servitude, 
and be at liberty to go and dwell where they please.” ° 

Several asylums are mentioned in the eighth century in 
different portions of Europe; some created by individuals, 
and others founded by royal authority. Still others are 
spoken of in Italy in the fourteenth century. From these 
has sprung the long list of Christian charities for children in 
all civilized countries ; asylums, refuges, créches, infant and 
industrial schools, reformatory institutions and aid societies 
without number, caring for the orphan, the blind, the deaf 
and dumb, the crippled and defective, the foundling and 

ECCS 2005, .akiis) LeVinehO; : 

2 Terme et Monfalgon. 

* Quoted in Hust. des Enfans Trouvés, Terme et Monfalgon. 
also Murators. 

Volo atque statuo, ut cum tales femina, quz instigante adver- 
sario ex adultero acceperint et parturierint, etc. Muratori, Ant. /tal., 
35 558. 


CHARTIIBS, LOR  GHILDREN, 83 


outcast. Christ especially showed his feeling for the child ; 
and Christianity, following His teachings, has always set 
the utmost value on the person and well-being of children, 
which, indeed, is “but the ‘natural fruit of the whole 
tendency of this religion. Probably, of all practical 
changes which Christianity has encouraged or commenced 
in the history of the world, this respect and value for 
children is the most important, as it affects the foundation 
of all society and government, and influences a far distant 
future. 


CHART EREV IL 
HUMANITY IN ROMAN LAW. 


WE refer continually to Constantine’s legislation, not 
because. this emperor could be considered a Christian 
convert, but because now, for the first time, Christianity 
was openly influencing Roman jurists. A brief review 
of some of the humane legislation of Constantine will 
show the working of the new system of morals. A law 
(312 A.D.) exempted Christian ministers from municipal 
charges, even as the pagan priests had been, thus putting 
the officials of the new religion on an equality with those 
of the old. An edict at Milan (313) granted liberty of 
conscience to Christians and worshippers under all other: 
religions. In the same year emancipation was permitted 
in a Christian church. In 321 legacies were allowed to 
religious houses; succour was sent to the African clergy, 
and the general observance of Sunday was prescribed. The 
panegyrics on Constantine spoke of his laws, as especially 
established for the control of morals and breaking the 
power of vices! His biographer expressly says that he 
desired to conform his legislation to the spirit of Christi- 
_ anity, and in this view he endeavoured to break down the 
old legislation which had oppressed the weak. It was 
with this purpose that he conferred upon the archbishops 


' Novee leges regendis moribus et. frangendis vitiis constitutee. 
\Pauer Cots iC. 38s) 
84 


HUMANE LEGISLATION. 85 


the legal right to protect the weak and become arbiters in 
civil cases, which, in an age of such cruelty and oppression, 
was often a great means of protection to the poorer classes. 
. In fact this practice was the beginning of the system of 
arbitration (Azstrd@ge), which in the Middle Ages became 
so important an influence in rescuing society in Germany 
from “private war” and anarchy. ‘The custom itself dates 
from the habit of the early Christians, taught by the 

Apostles, of deciding their disputes by arbiters chosen 

among themselves. 

An act (328) asserts the right of all the inhabitants of 
- the empire to have recourse to the courts of justice, and 
the duty of all judges and magistrates to exercise strict 
impartiality. All were held equal before the law. Another 
(331) protests against the venality so common throughout 
the administration. “ Let the rapacious hands of officials 
cease from their plunder—cease, I say!”+ In 334, it was 
proclaimed that widows and orphans, the weak and the 
poor, cannot be forced -before a tribunal of their own 
province (where influence and wealth might oppress them), 
but can appeal to the emperor. In 365, Valentinian [. 
freed widows from the tax laid on. the common people, 
and exempted orphans up to the age of 20, and female 
orphans till they were married. 

The first laws upon the observance of Sunday are 
especially in the interest of the working-classes, and clearly 
manifest the influence of the new ideas in the Roman 
world. Thus one (321) forbade other labours than those 
of the fields on Sunday, and all civil public acts, except 
emancipation. Soldiers, too, were allowed the privilege of 
assisting at divine worship on that day. 


1 Cessent jam nunc rapaces officialium manus, cessent inquam ! 
\ Bere og ee Wie titen72) 4.° Cod. 7Wsis iD. lily tit.’ 125.2, :3..":Cod, 
Treva aD iis tit. 8. 2, 16) Cod. Just, NDT. tit. 38, 2, I. 


86 GESTA, GHRISTI!, 


If we reflect on the condition of Roman slaves and 
all labourers at that period, how incessant and wasting 
the toil, and what sacrifice of human life was the result, 
we shall appreciate the humanity of the first “ Sunday 
Laws.” 

A law of Emperor Leo says: “On the Lord’s Day, 
eternally worthy of honour and of veneration, let no act of 
legal procedure be done; let no debtor receive a summons, 
let no pleadings be heard, let there be no process, let the 
hard voice of the public crier be silent, let the pleaders see 
their discussions interrupted, and enjoy a moment of truce ; 
let adversaries agree and repentance enter into their soul. 
We make, then, this day a day of repose, but we do not 
wish that obscene pleasures should fill it. On Sunday, 
let all theatrical representations, and races in the amphi- 
theatre, and lamentable combats of wild beasts, be sus- 
pended; and if the solemnity of our birth or coronation 
fall on that day, let the celebration be deferred.” 4 

The new spirit touched even the forms of law. In 
A.D. 342, the enactments said boldly, ‘“ Let the formule of 
ancient law, those captious syllables which are nets for 
good faith, disappear completely from all acts.” 

No classic legislator, so far as we can recall, had ever 
cared for that often unfortunate class—the prisoners. 
Many were merely confined as witnesses, many on false 
accusations, and all demanded, at least, common humanity 
in their public treatment. 

The prison reform of succeeding centuries began under 
Constantine’s reign. Those accused of crimes are to be 
examined with all diligence, and those arrested must be 
confined in a humane manner. The cells must have air 
and light. Persons under accusations are not to be put in 
jails, or scourged, but are to be placed under “ military 

+ Code VATA eit: 


PRISON REFORM. 87 


arrest,” and in a prison open to the light! A law in 314 
forbade the judges to inflict capital punishment without 
the confession of the accused, or sworn testimony of the 
accusers. The new moral power in the world seemed to 
give a fresh dignity to the human countenance, as having 
been borne by Him who was the Son of God, and who had . 
died for men. “Let those who are condemned,” says a 
writing of Constantine (318), “whether to gladiatorial 
games or to the mines, not be branded on the forehead, 
that the majesty of the face formed in the image of celes- 
tial beauty be not dishonoured.”* In 340, a law forbade 
the mingling of sexes in prison ; and another was enacted 
protecting the modesty of Christian virgins against traf- 
fickers in prostitution* Honorius° charged the judges to 
visit the prisons every Sunday to see that the prisoners 
received sufficient nourishment, and to guard lest the 
proper humanity be not shown the convicts by corrupt 
jailors. The sentiment of humanity reached even the 
rights over material things, and in Justinian’s Code the 
following beautiful passage occurs in regard to selling the 
home of a minor :— 

“It shall not be lawful to sell the home in which the 
father has died and the youth grown up; in which either 
to see the statues of ancestors not placed or overthrown is 
melancholy indeed.” ° 

Such a provision as the following, though made for a 


1 Cod. Theod., \ib. ix. tit. 5. 

euilia wliba ie, tit. 40,21, 2. 

3 Jbid., lib. xv. tit. 8, 21. 

4 pia MD FX, tits 3,1. 

5 Ne his humanitas clausis per corruptos carcerum custodes nege- 
fir (707d), lib. x. tit. 3,27.) 

6 Nec vero domum vendere liceat, in qua defecit pater, minor 
crevit ; in qua, majorum imagines, aut non videre fixas aut revulsas, 
videre, satis est lugubre. (Cod, ix. tit. 37.) 


88 GHSTA NOL AIS! T, 


personal object by the emperor, breathed the new spirit in 
the Roman world. By the severe old Papinian law, if a 
free man should marry a woman who had been a slave 
though now a freed woman, and should afterwards chance 
to be elevated to the senatorial dignity, the marriage was 
thereby dissolved. The law of the codifiers, full of the 
new humanity, says: “We then, following the judgment 
of God, do not suffer the good fortune of the husband to 
become the calamity of the wife. Far from our times be 
any severity of this kind!” and it is enacted that such a 
marriage is good.! 

The deep enthusiasm of humanity working throughout 
the Roman world under the new impulse, finds its fitting 
expression in these mild provisions of the Roman law. 
The personality of the Jewish teacher is felt by students 
labouring in their closets in codifying or improving legis- 
lation for the empire, and the dry details of law bear the 
stamp upon them of Him who held all men as children of 
a common Father, and believed in overcoming evil with 
good. 

These are interesting as the first traces of the Gesta 
Christ in European legislation; they herald a long history 
of humane victories, 

Opposition to War by Christians in the Roman Period 
—It need scarcely be said that the spirit of Christ’s 
teachings is opposed to war, and, above all, to wars of 
vengeance or conquest. But this is one of those points 
in which He was so much in advance not only of His own 
times, but of all succeeding ages, that His followers have 
only been able to make a kind of compromise between His 
principles and the ideas of the time. They have often 
excused only defensive wars, or service given on compul- 


' Nos igitur Dei sequentes judicium, etc. Absit a nostro tempore, 
hujusmodi asperitas ! (Cod., lib. v. tit. 4.) 


OPPOSITION TO WAR. 89 


sion, or they have sought to mitigate the horrors of war, 
or to prevent it by arbitration. The habits of arbitration 
in private matters were very early implanted among be- 
lievers by the words of Jesus (Matt. xviil. 15-17) and the 
apostles (I Cor. vi. 4-7). But the early followers, being 
under the more immediate inspiration of the Master, went — 
much farther, and great numbers seem to have refused 
entirely to serve as soldiers, or to join in any war what- 
ever. The phrase is often repeated by the earlier Fathers, 
that “Jesus in disarming Peter disarmed all soldiers.” 

An anecdote is related of a certain Christian, Maxi- 
milian by name, who was brought before a Roman tribunal 
to be enrolled asa soldier in one of the legions of Rome. 
On the proconsul asking his name, he replied: “IT ama 
Christian—I cannot fight!” He was enrolled, but still 
refused to fight. He was told that he must either serve 
Piaraicae lievavain, replied) Tyamva'!@hristian! «Il: can 
‘not fight, even if I die!” whereupon he was executed} 
Another instance is given of a centurion named Marcellus, 
in the legion of “ Trajan.” He became a Christian, and 
believing war not permitted by his faith, he threw down his 
belt before his legion, and declared that, consistently with 
his principles, he could not fight. He was sent to prison, 
but still persisting in his refusal, and his declaration that it 
was not lawful fora Christian to engage in war, he was 
put todeath. Another officer? in the same legion resigned 
for a.similar-reason, and was also executed: A number of 
such instances are recorded, and probably many more have 
never come down to us. 

Many of the early Fathers took the ground that no 
Christian could lawfully be a soldier or engage ina war. 


' Acts of Ruinart, quoted by Dymond, Lssays on Principles of 
Morality, p. 418. 
2 Dymond, p. 418. 


go CLSLAS CRIS TL. 


Justin Martyr and Tatian speak of soldiers and Christians as 
distinct characters, and Tatian says that Christians decline 
military commands. Clemens calls Christians “ followers 
- of peace,” and says they use no implements of war. Lac- 
tantius states repeatedly that it can never be lawful for a 
righteous man to go to war Tertullian argues against 
if in “De: Corona”, (c. xi.), ‘and (statessthatwan) ater 
portion of the Roman armies, embracing more than one- 
third of the best legions, not a Christian is to be found. 
In another passage, speaking of the prophecy of Isaiah as 
to universal peace, he adds:* “You must confess that the 
prophecy of Isaiah is accomplished, as far as the practice of 
every individual is concerned to whom it is applicable.” 
He" calls, Christians “priests ofspeace @alrenanismeag 
“Christians have turned swords and spears into pruning- 
hooks, and know not how to fight.” Justin Martyr 
declares that “the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, you have 
reason to know; for we, who in times past killed one 
another, do not now fight with our enemies.? 

One of the accusations against Christians was that they 
refused to serve in the Roman armies. Origen, in answer- 
ing*this reproach from |Celsus,ssayst(A pol) i. 6) eta 
those unbelievers who would force us to fight for the 
commonwealth, to destroy human beings, we would 
answer: That even their own idol-priests, and those who 
attend upon the service of their reputed gods, do keep 
themselves unstained with human blood, that so they 
may offer sacrifices for the whole nation with clean and 
unpolluted hands. Neither, in case war should arise, are 


1 Ita neque militare justo licebit. (Dzv. Zvsé., lib. xi.) 

2 Dymond, p. 418. 

* Quoted by Dymond ; but see Justin, Déalog. cum. Tryph. Apol., 2. 
Tertull., Apol., c. 21 and 37. Origen con. Celsum, 3, 5, 8. Cypr. 
Epist., 56. Athan. Cyril. ete. 


LARLY CHRISTIANS NOT SOLDIERS. OI 


these men to be enlisted in their armies. And if this be 
done without reason, how much more may they be said 
after their manner to fight, who, being priests to the most 
high God, endeavour to preserve themselves free from blood 
and rapine; that so, while others are polluted with spoil 
and slaughter, they may wrestle with God Himself, by 
constant and incessant prayer, for the welfare of them that 
make war justly, and for the safety of them that govern 
righteously.” 

Le Blant, in his investigation of Christian inscriptions, 
mentions that among 10,050 Pagan inscriptions which he 
had examined, 545 were those over the bodies of soldiers, 
while in 4,734 Christian inscriptions only twenty-seven were 
memorials of military men.! 

Dymond states, that for two hundred years not a Chris- 
tian soldier is on record in the Roman armies; and that 
only in the third century, when Christianity was more 
corrupted, they began to be enrolled. 

This may be an exaggeration; for we know that some 
of the most influential of the Fathers, as Augustine? for 
instance, defended military service and did not object to a 
Christian’s enlisting in a “righteous war.” Then, much of 
the objection on the part of the believers was more to the 
idolatrous practices connected with the Roman military ser- 
vice than to the shedding of blood itself. Still it all shows 
that the first unconscious drift of the early Christian teach- 
ings was against war, or any participation in it. This did 
not indeed become a reality in Christian life in later ages, for 

1 Inscr. Chrét. dela Gaule, p. 81. 

.2 Yet Augustine was a lover of peace, as were all the Fathers. 
What shall I say of peace or of praise of peace till we arrive at that 
country of peace? There we shall be able to praise it, where we more 


fully possess it. Jerusalem is the vision of peace, and all who possess 
and love peace, are blessed there for evermore.” (Zvact. iu 2s. cx. 


57-) 


92 GESLTAL CHRISTI! 


Christians have supported war in every century, yet it 
prepared the way for the efforts for peace and arbitration 
in the Middle Ages which we shall detail later—for the 
modern efforts to mitigate the evils of war and to prevent 
it by arbitration,—and for the higher efforts of the followers 
of the Prince of Peace, sure to.come, to put an end to war 
on the earth, and bring on universal peace. 


CHAPTER IX. 
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY. 


THERE will be diverse difficulties in examining the direc- 
tion and effect of Christ’s teachings on the distribution of 
property. Weare not to define Oriental and _half-poetic 
expressions as we would similar phrases in a Western and 
more prosaic narrative ; and on the other hand, we should 
not interpret Christ’s words solely by the practice of his 
later followers and by the ideas of a modern and industrial 
age. It is not to be assumed, as is done by most writers 
on this subject, that the modern form of the distribution 
of wealth is the final and perfect one, and that society as 
it is now is substantially what it must be in all coming 
ages, or what our Lord contemplated in his future ‘‘ King- 
dom of Heaven,” or regenerated society of all men. A 
Christian writer in the early Middle Age would have had 
equal right to assume that society must always be made 
up of landlords owning vast tracts of country, who pro- 
tected their vassals, of large bodies of military followers, 
and of serfs bound to the soil, or that justice in regard to 
quarrels over property and land must always be decided 
the judicial duel. Both conditions were not directly touched 
upon by the teachings of the great Reformer, yet the prin- 
ciples He taught must gradually undermine both. The 
feudal system belonged to a stage of human progress. 
The modern industrial and commercial system may be 


equally one phase in the gradual change or advance of 
93 


94 GESTA CHRISTI. 


mankind, At all events, it is not the ideal or perfect 
system. A condition of society in which enormous masses 
of human beings are born to an almost inevitable lot of 
squalor, penury and ignorance, and still other multitudes 
to incessant labour with few alleviations or enjoyments, 
while another considerable class, with little or no effort of 
their own, have all the blessings of life and transmit them 
to others,—or an industrial system which leaves to the few 
who are gifted with the brains or enjoy the fortune to lead 
industrial enterprizes the power to reap the benefits of 
labour, while the many who toil, only gain a bare pittance, 
—a society which presents on one side, enormous fortunes 
and endless accumulations of wealth, while on the other, 
it offers classes ground down by poverty and pinched with 
want, is certainly not the Christian ideal of society or any 
approach to the “Kingdom of God” on earth. 

The great moral progress of the future of the race will 
plainly be toward some form of a more equable distribution 
of the proceeds of labour. What form this will take is as 
impossible to predict, as would have been for a citizen of 


the Roman empire at the time of Tacitus to predict the. 


present condition of Europe. 

If we read Christ’s teachings with perfect candour, and as 
far removed from modern habits of thought as_ possible, 
we discover a continual tendency towards exalting poverty, 
humbling wealth, and equalizing the conditions of life. 
Leaving out of view the fact that Christ and His disciples 
lived in almost an atmosphere of agrarianism, or at least 
of inalienability of family property in land, under the 
Jewish land-system,! and also the natural freedom from 
all burdens of property which the teacher of a new faith 


* How far this was a practical feature of Jewish economy at the 
time of Christ, is, of course, difficult to say. The ideal was in the law, 
and must have influenced the minds of the reformers of Judzea. 


CHRIST'S COMMUNISM. 95 


might well inculcate in a climate such as that of Syria; 
still, there is even then a certain tone throughout the 
cospels, if not of “communism,” at least in favour of 
sreater distribution of wealth than would suit modern 
ideas. Christ and the apostles warn incessantly against 
accumulation of wealth. They almost denounce the rich; 
they praise and commend the poor; their sympathies are 
strongly with the working classes; they urge continually 
the diffusion of property, in whatever way would benefit 
the world; they warn those who do not scatter their ac- 
quisitions among the needy; they leave the impression 
everywhere, that a greater equalizing of human goods, a 
moderate acquisition, and a raising up from poverty is 
what is demanded. The parable of Lazarus has been 
too often interpreted under modern conditions, and it may 
-well be that some explanatory features given by Christ 
are omitted by the historian ; but its literal interpretation 
plainly contains a plea against the great inequalities of 
fortune in this world. ; 

Nothing, however, in Christ’s teachings tends towards any 
forcible interfering with rights of property, or encourages 
dependence on others. As we have so often said, He 
seldom concerns Himself with human institutions. He 
would not interfere with property any more than He would 
with government. And, as we shall show, in presenting 
His influence on the charity of the world, neither He nor 
His apostles ever taught idleness or dependence. On the 
contrary, they enforced the lesson of industry by word and 
example; and the very foundation of the new character, 
stamped by Christ, contained those features of dignity and 
true manhood which have lain at the basis of all real 
independence and liberty ever since, Neither the idleness 
of.socialism or monasticism nor the weakness of pauper- 
ism finds any support in the gospels. 


96 GES TANCE RIS TT, 


The especial methods by which our Lord would resist 
accumulation, are by inculcating the absolute duty of 
giving and of sharing means with others who are less for- 
tunate, and by withdrawing the mind from the excessive 
greed for money. In many cases, the entire giving up 
of property for the good of others is made the test of 
discipleship. 

The early “communism” of the apostles is an evidence 
how deeply these instructions penetrated ; but nothing in 
the words of Christ or His disciples shows that they set | 
forth this as a model for the future. Their great. prin- 
ciples were, not to hunger for riches, to be content with 
moderate means, and if wealth came, to hold it rigidly as 
a trust for the good of humanity. These principles would 
certainly tend towards equalization of property. 

Charity—One great means of equalizing human con- 
ditions was evidently to be through benefaction and charity. 
Those who had were to give to those who had not. This, 
however, did not arise under Christ’s system so much from 
a desire of setting right the distribution of wealth, as from 
the great underlying principle of His whole teachings, 
that the individual and society were to be renewed by 
/ love to God, and to man through Him. The world never 
needed charity and compassion as it did in the centuries 
just following Christ. The irresponsible and despotic 
authority of Rome had stripped some of the richest 
provinces of the ancient world of every vestige of wealth 
for the sake of adding to the incredible extravagance and 
display of the imperial court and city. The system of 
taxation in distant communities was like that in the states 
of European Turkey in this century. It soon left nothing 
to the unfortunate peasants, and mortgaged their harvests 
years before. Nor did the taxes always reach the imperial 
exactor, Knavish tax-gatherers, peculating officials and 


ROMAN PAUPERISM. 97 


local “ rings,” plundered the money which was wrung from 
the half-starved farmers. There was no science, order or 
justice in Roman systems of. taxation. Incessant wars 
and conquests added to the misery of the labouring 
classes; and slavery, as we have shown, depressed the in- 
dustry and wasted the meats of the whole Ginpire ww Vast 
masses of proletaires were gathered in the cities, especially 
in the imperial capital ; and poverty, orphanage, abandon- 
ment of children, with wide-spread pauperism prevailed, 
as they have scarcely ever been known in the history 
of the world. 

But it must not be supposed that there were no efforts 
of compassion to alleviate these evils before the first 
proclamation of Christian charity. The sympathies of 
humanity have been felt in every age and by every race, 
even if in a feeble degree. In ancient Rome, men always 
acknowledged a certain duty in giving alms to beggars 
and in relieving extreme distress, though infant misery 
seems to have excited comparatively little compassion. 

Still, anything like the modern sentiment or conviction, 
born of Christianity, of the obligation resting upon each 
man of doing all in his power to wisely relieve human 
misery; and the wide-spread, thorough, conscientious bene- 
factions by individuals, so common in modern days, were 
things almost unknown in the ancient world. 

Nor were the efforts of the imperial government for the 
poor, true charities. It depended toa certain degree on 
the favorr of the crowd, and therefore food was supplied 
indiscriminately to all the hungry and idle who poured 
into the capital. In Cicero’s time, it is estimated that 
about 12 per cent. of the whole population, and in the year 
683 of the Republic, 33 per cent. were supported at public 
expense} 

1 Naudet, Mem. sur les secours publics chez les Romatns. 
HH 


98 GES TAVGCHRISTH. 


It is related that Caesar found 320,000 persons, or nearly 
three-quarters of the whole population of the city, on the 
roll of public succour ; five wzodiz of bread (or about 56 
Ibs.) were distributed to each person per month. Under 
Augustus, there were 200,000 persons in Rome receiving 
“out-door relief” from the authorities; this was continued 
to the reign of Septimius Severus, who added a ration of 
oil to the alms thus given. Valentinian the Elder ordered 
a gratuituous distribution of white bread to each citizen vl 
80,c09 modii were distributed per day in Constantinople, 
and an increase of 125,000 modii per day was made by 
Constans. Constantine, who desired to have as many 
houses built in the new capital as possible, allotted bread 
according to the houses, not to the number of persons. 
Some of the emperors appropriated large amounts of 
money to keeping down the price of bread in the capital, 
while others taxed the provinces heavily in order to make 
provisions cheap in the metropolis. The effects of such 
a vicious system of charity can easily be inferred. The 
idle and improvident of all countries were attracted to 
Rome to enjoy this “out-door relief;” the industrious 
were discouraged, those who produced the wealth bur- 
dened, and the working-classes were led to depend on the 
government for everything, while the government lived 
in fear of them. There was no spirit of true compassion 
in it, and no wise economy. The masses supported a 
tyranny and received bread and shows. The real workers 
were despoiled. But there were other indirect methods 
of distributing property under the Republic and Empire. 
Such articles as salt were furnished gratuitously to the 
people; patrons supported their clients; ‘“stay-laws” were 
passed to prevent the collection of debts; agrarian laws 
furnished, like the American public-land laws, free home- 

LC. Theod., xiv, 17, Shand tOw2s oie 2. 


ROMAN CHARITIES. 99 


steads to the landless, on conquered or public territory. 
Cesar bought lands to be distributed among the poor. 
The vicious system of public distribution of bread or grain 
among the people was not abandoned till the seventh 
century after Christ. 

There even existed some forms of public assistance in 
harmony with modern ideas. Aristotle had the wisdom 
to say that the best way to relieve poverty was to prevent 
it, by giving means to buy a little piece of land or by a loan 
to found a trade. Mutual assistance or insurance societies 
seem to have existed in Greece, and are spoken of by 
Pliny! in Trajan’s time, as formed for “making poverty 
more endurable.”? Before this time, the emperors had 
seen with anxiety the constant diminution of popula- 
tion, especially shown in the lessening number of children 
in the empire. Augustus attempted to encourage the 
increase of children by well-known laws, and it is related 
that on his travels through Italy, he was in the habit of 
bestowing an allowance (congiarium) of 400 sesterces® on 
any one whom the authorities could prove to have sup- 
ported a family ; subsequently, children over eleven years 
of age were made participators in these bounties. 

The Emperor Nerva left benefactions to encourage the 
increase of children. Trajan, in 100 A.D., supported 5,000 
destitute or orphan children at public expense, and_ in- 
creased the number every year. Money was invested by 
him for this purpose in land and farms at Veleia, Cisalpine 
Gaul, which appears to have paid about 5 per cent. interest. 
In this particular school or asylum, there were 263 boys 
and 33 girls; in some villages poor children were supported 
in their homes by the emperor, while municipalities main- 
tained others. 


PLAY Poxs-93, 94. 
* Ad sustinendum tenuorum inopiam, 3 About £8 or $41. 


itere) GESTA CHRISTY. 


Pliny endowed a charity for the children of the poor ; 
while the emperors Adrian, Antoninus, and M. Aurelius 
founded or continued benefactions of a like character. 

Charitable bequests are occasionally alluded to in the | 
burial inscriptions. Thus a citizen of Atona bequeathed 
to his native town a sum equal to 43,200 or $16,000; a 
lady of rank, “in memory of her son,” gives to Terra- 
cina £8000 or £40,000 to establish a charity; and various 
smaller bequests for benevolent purposes are mentioned.? 

One of the nearest approaches to the charitable associ- 
ations of the Christian world, were the curious collegia of 
the Roman empire in the first and second centuries. The 
history of these has been especially brought forward 
through the burial inscriptions? recently deciphered. 

They seem to have been a kind of social clubs or 
masonic associations, where all were equal, where fraternal 
meals were common, and monthly payments prepared a 
fund for sepulture, for common festivals, and sometimes 
for ornamental buildings. They formed a natural pro- 
totype for the Christian Churches and their charitable 
societies ; but, so far as can be ascertained, they did not 
use their funds for the poor. They cultivated the habit 
of equality, and the fraternal spirit, but they did not feel 
or express “the enthusiasm of humanity,” and therefore 
died out, or were converted into Christian societies. Yet 
the ideal was sometimes there, as in one beautiful in- 
scription on a woman’s tomb, who is pictured as “the 
mother of all human beings, ready to help all, and who 
had made the life of no one sad.” # 


VSG. REL, 71, 725:755: 7 Fst Ov tbe 

2 Orelli and Mommsen, quoted in Boissier, La Religion Romaine, 
opal a 2.1 3, )V 0A 

3 De Rossi, La Roma sott. Christ. 

4 Omnium hominum parens, omnibus subveniens, tristem fecit 
neminem, 


CHRISTIAN CHARITY. IOL 


But few, however, of such institutions existed in the 
pre-Christian period. The great masses suffering poverty 
and orphanage in the Roman empire remained almost 
untouched by any influence of compassion or any effort 
of relief. . 

With Christianity began the organized and individual 
charity of modern Europe, which for these eighteen cen- 
turies has wiped away so many tears, softened so much 
suffering, saved so many young lives from misery and 
sin, ministered at so many death-beds, made the solitary 
evening of life sweet to so many forsaken ones, and the 
morning glad to so many who would have been born to 
sorrow and shame; which in so many countries has cared 
for the sick, the blind, the deaf, the crippled, the outcast 
and tempted ; the young, the orphan, the foundling, and 
the aged. Surely, if anything is a fore-gleam of that 
kingdom of heaven which is yet to shine over the earth, 
it is the brotherhood of spirit, shown in the charity of the 
modern world. This is most distinctly the fruit of Christ’s 
teachings. And yet the Master did not lay any extraor- 
dinary weight on alms-giving. He simply taught the love 
of man through love to Himself, that the poorest and 
lowest of the human race represented Himself, and what 
was done to them was done to Him. The equal brother- 
hood of man came forth from His teachings, and all 
human beings of whatever rank, or under whatever dis- 
abilities of misfortune, became of equal value in the eyes 
of His followers, as being those for whom He lived and in 
behalf of whom He felt it not unworthy to die. The un- 
fortunate had henceforth around them the halo of the great 
Sufferer, and a very different place in the sympathies of 
the new world of Europe. 

The Christian Churches became very early centres of 
charity. Refuges for orphans (orphano-trophie) were 


102 GAS TAVCHARIST/. 


formed in connection with them, and hospitals for mothers ; 
many of them maintained free “strangers’ rests ” (xeno- 
dochiz). The emperor Julian’s famous letter to Arsenius, 
’ speaks in reproach of the Galilewans supporting not only 
their own poor, but also those of the Romans, 

Valentinian in 364 A.D. ina proclamation, says that the 
true worship ! consists in helping the poor and relieving 
those in necessity, while he charges the bishops to watch 
over the poor and save them from exactions. Several of 
the Christian emperors took under their especial protection 
houses for the orphan and infirm.2. The Code pronounces 
it a pious duty to support orphan-asylums.® 

Justinian’s Code speaks of hospitals for mothers4 

Churches were constantly enriched by the offerings of 
Christian charity, in order that they might extend their 
benefactions; and the clergy were allowed especial pri- 
vileges, inasmuch as their property was employed for the 
good of others. This is the beginning of that ecclesiastical 
endowment and freedom from public burdens, which after- 
wards became so great a weight upon many European 
communities. It proves, at least in that age, the fervour - 
of charity under the new influences, 

The month of December, which had been the especial 
month in which gladiatorial games and cruel shows were 
provided by the rich for the poor in memory of the dead, 
became the month of offerings for the poor and suffering 
in memory of Him who had died for all. 

The first hospital is said to have been built in Rome at 

WECTR AT Ey, 1, 3.32. 


* Verus cultus est adjuvare pauperes (sic) et positos in necessitate. 
(COMMIT 27505-45012) 

* Pium atque religiosum officium pro tempore orphanotrophos ita 
peragere convenit. (Corp. Fur., 1, 3.) 

* Cod, Lheow., 1. 2, 17, 22, 

BOL KVime 110. 


PAUPERISM NOT ENCOURAGED. 103 


the end of the fourth century. A little later, Pulcheria, 
sister of Theodosius the younger, built and endowed 
several at Constantinople; they increased under later 
reigns The Church councils, by repeated acts of legisla- 
tion, imposed on the clergy and citizens the obligation 
of supporting, feeding, and clothing the poor, and these 
declarations were re-affirmed in every city by the local 
clergy. 

Effects of Charity—I\t has been alleged with some 
apparent justice, that this spirit of Christian charity, which 
has made modern socicty so different from ancient, has 
cultivated dependence, and increased pauperism or that 
kind of poverty which is without hope or energy. 

But it should be remembered that there is nothing in 
the teachings of Christ or the apostles which favoured 
indiscriminate alms-giving, or the supporting the poor 
without labour. “If a man will not work neither shall 
he eat” is evidently a favourite proverb with the great 
apostle. He himself Jaboured with his own hands. The 
disciples were working people, and Christ, in human 
relations, belonged to the working-classes. The type of 
character He stamped on men was the very opposite of 
the idle and dependent kind ; it was earnest, self-controlled, 
under a deep sense of responsibility, looking continually 
to Him to whom man should give an account of every 
word and work, with a conviction of being the child of 
God, and therefore calling no man master. It was such a 
character as could not possibly in the long course of ages 
sustain tyranny, or support even priestly arbitrary rule, 
or encourage any form of pauperism and dependence. It 
seerns to contain the stuff out of which republicans and 
lovers of freedom in all ages are made, and from which the 
most independent and self-relying (because God-relying) 

1 Cod. Fust., 1. 2, 17, 22. 


104 CTRL AGLI TUL OA 


races are formed. Yet forms of government or laws re- 
lating to the management of the poor were the last things 
which Christ would interfere with. 

The excessive and unreasoning alms-giving of European 
countries, and the monastic associations of the Middle 
Ages, are not due to the legitimate and logical influence of 
Christianity. They are a natural re-action from the selfish- 
ness of the classic period, and sprang from the fearful 
economical condition in which Europe found itself at the 
destruction of the Roman empire. So profound and ap- 
parently remediless were the evils of the civilized world, 
so impossible did it seem then to reach the sources of the 
universal calamity, that a humane person, and above all, 
one filled with this new love of God and man might well 
think he had done enough and the best, in sacrificing all 
to relieve present human misery. He might be willing to 
take on him the garb of a servant, and, unlike his Master, 
merely minister to terrible bodily wants, without regard 
to what was beyond: or to the causes of pauperism and 
suffering. He could become an alms-distributing monk ; | 
or, wearied out with the intense struggle to support life 
amid a world of suffering and selfishness, it would not be 
strange that he should join one of the “ mutual assistance 
societies” of those ages, and withdraw to a convent where 
he could pass his days in quiet labour, peaceful studies, 
and rapt devotion. The world of the Roman empire 
seemed perishing ; the imperial city was half-destroyed ; 
the monk felt only too happy to belong to the city of 
God, and to keep his thoughts on the world unseen and 
eternal. 

Christianity cannot be considered directly responsible 
for monasticism any more than for numerous other vaga- 
ries of the human mind since its advent. A very large 
part of the wealth of the community which before Christ 


DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, - 105 


was devoted to the luxuries of the rich, or was expended 
in debasing and cruel spectacles, was henceforth mainly 
distributed among the labouring classes through hospitals; 
asylums, free-schools, institutions of learning and various 
charities. 

Charity is not the best form of the distribution of the 
profits of labour, but it is certainly one form. Education, 
as endowed by individuals or the State, is another and 
better form. And this began in Europe especially after 
Christianity, though the efforts of the Arabs in this direc- 
tion in subsequent ages should never be forgotten. 

We do not claim, of course, that the Christian religion 
in the Roman period solved the problem of ages—the 
proper distribution of wealth. We only urge that its 
principles and the words of its Founder tended towards a 
far more equitable division of property than the world has 
yet known ; that, as its truths more and more control men, 
there will continually be in some form or other a more 
equal distribution of the profits of labour, and that some- 
thing of the just sharing by those who have with those who 
have not was seen at that period. 

The method of distribution will vary with each succed- 
ing age, 


CA Maul SDK DG 


RESUME OF REFORMS IN THE ROMAN PERIOD. 


THE reforms to be traced in the foregoing chapters show 
the natural and legitimate influence of the Christian 
system. Parents are bid by the apostle to respect their 
children, and under Christ’s ideas, the son stands with the 
father as a common child of God whose rights and claims 
are to be equally considered before Him. Such a tyranny 
as that of the Roman Patria Potestas could not possibly 
exist for a long period where society was even feebly 
touched with the spirit of Christ. 

The Stoical spirit of humanity had undoubtedly softened 
the extreme features of harshness of this rule, but it did 
not come to an end till the new Faith had reached the 
legislation of the empire. Equally so with the succession 
of property. The humane views of the Stoical school had | 
already modified the strict tendencies of the Roman law, 
but it was only after the new doctrines of brotherhood 
and justice, taught by the followers of the great Jewish 
teachers, had touched the imperial legislators, that suc- 
cession followed the bonds of blood and moved in the 
channels of true equity. 

The power of Christianity on the Roman world was 
especially the influence of a Person, of a pure and elevated 
character who claimed to be a supernatural Being in his 
relations to men and God, and who was the Founder of 
a new religion. His nature alone, from its purity and 
elevation, seemed to sweep away unnatural passions from 


106 


LEE CONGOLSTS CP CHLIST. 107 


among men, and both in the Roman empire, and since 
among all races following Him, unnatural vice—one of the 
createst evils of antiquity,—has substantially passed away. 
His character and teachings naturally checked and finally 
rooted out such a barbarous cruelty and selfish practice, as 
the exposure of children by parents; and through His 
influence began the long series of charities for children and 
the poor and unhappy, which have come down through 
the centuries. He was not only in advance of the Roman 
period, but of all ages since, in teaching the duty of a more 
equitable distribution of wealth in behalf of the poor, the 
unfortunate and the labotrring classes. 

The influence of the great Friend of humanity was espe- 
cially seen in the Roman empire in checking licentious and 
cruel sports, so common and so demoralizing among the 
classic races ; and in bringing on a new legislation of bene- 
ficence in favour of the outcast woman, the mutilated, the 
prisoner, and the slave. For the first time the stern and 
noble features of Roman law took on an unwonted expres- 
sion of gentle humanity and sweet compassion, under the 
power of Him who was the brother of the unfortunate and 
the sinful. The great followers of the Teacher of Galilee 
became known as the “brothers of the slave,” and the 
Christian religion began its struggle of many centuries 
with those greatest of human evils—slavery and serfdom. 
It did not indeed succeed in abolishing them; but the 
remarkable mitigations of the system in Roman law, and 
the constant drift towards a condition of liberty, and the 
increasing emancipation throughout the Roman empire, 
are plainly fruits of its principles. All these and similar 
steps of humane progress are the “ Gesta Christi” and the 
direct effects of His personal influence on the world. 

As to the position of woman, it was the continual re- 
proach of the early enemies of the Christians that they 


108 GESTA CHRISTI. 


put woman on so high a position. Women had from the 
first a strong influence in the Church ; the earliest converts 
from all ranks of society were women, and the example 
of Christ and the apostles. has given the key-note to all 
modern civilization in the tender respect and dignity thrown 
around the weaker sex. In this, the Jews of the imperial 
era only followed out much of the early teachings of the 
Sacred Book. The picture of the Jewish woman in the 
last chapter of Proverbs (xxxi. 10-31) might describe the 
position of a Christian lady with many dependents in the 
nineteenth century in any civilized portion of America or 
Europe. | 

At the period of which we are speaking, the peculiar in- 
fluence of the German tribes upon the position of woman 
had not been much felt in the Empire. The “tutelage” 
of woman existed among them also, There was nothing 
in the Stoical mode of thought, or in the teachings and 
example of Stoics, which especially tended to elevate 
woman. The current opinion in the cultivated classes of 
the Kcman empire, if we may judge from poets, satirists, 
and fragments of speeches handed down, was of profound 
contempt for woman in the moral and intellectual aspect. 
There were of course happy marriages, and many instances 
of affection for sisters and female relatives or friends, 
and the annals of Rome presented not a few examples 
of very heroic and superior women; but, in general, 
Roman women merited by their conduct and their lack of 
intelligence in the imperial era, the contempt and censure 
so freely showered on them by the men. 

The change in their legal position and the removal of 
tutelage, is plainly due to the effects of the new Faith. 
Their own character rose with the increased respect 
accorded them in the rising Church. They became the 
confessors of the Faith under the most brutal and savage 


INFLUENCE ON WOMAN. 109 


persecutions; their martyrdoms on the cross, in the bloody 
arena or under frightful tortures, formed the most touching 
incidents in Christian traditions. The sufferings and death 
of women in the early ages of the Faith for ever hallowed 
the sex in the history of the Church. 

Marriage, too, under the Christian idea, was a bond of 
equal union, and the highest spiritual partnership. It 
recognised the two partners as equal before God, and as 
of one flesh, even though different offices were assigned to 
each. The Roman tutelage could not exist long under 
it, It is true that this idea of marriage existed with 
the Stoics, but it was seldom realized ; and what the 
Roman practice became, we have seen. Yet the new Faith 
would not permit the entire freedom and laxity which 
arose under the Roman “free marriage,” any more than it 
recognised the entire subjection and inferiority of the wife 
under the ancient Latin marriage. It demanded faithful- 
ness, virtue, and propriety ; it urged the indissolubility 
of marriage, except for unfaithfulness or its moral equi- 
valent; it: taught the continuance of the union through 
endless ages of a coming life. So it happened, that this 
Faith had a composite influence on the position of woman. 
It strengthened the marriage tie, and therefore, restrained 
woman of the great freedom she had been enjoying as a 
married woman under Roman practice. It gave her on the 
other hand, greater dignity, both as wife and unmarried, 
and removed her from under the excessive restraints of the 
old Roman law. The Church, with its Canon law, has un- 
doubtedly often gone beyond the teachings of its Founder, 
and subjected the wife to unreasonable legal restraints. 
But at the period of which we speak, the power of both 
‘Religion and Church entered Roman society as a thoroughly 
purifying and ennobling agency. It did not accomplish, 
indeed, all that in its nature it was intended to effect ; 


1@ fe) EP ONE ON 8b SNIP 


the Roman habits were too long formed and the influence 
of both laws and emperors was too weak to eradicate 
them. Moreover, there comes a period in the history 
of the decadence of a race when its moral condition is 
aparently beyond the reach of any system of morality, or 
of the purest religion.’ We know that moral changes are 
wrought out by slow moral means, and that it is possible 
for a race as for an individual to reach such depths .of 
corruption and weakness as to forbid any reasonable 
possibility of renovation and restoration. 

The Roman race, and many of the races under its sway, 
had evidently fallen to that stage of degeneracy. They 
were eaten away by vices and corruption beyond any hope 
of redemption. Their great historian—the prophet of 
evil—Tacitus, saw this with singular clearness, and_ this 
thought inspires his solemn and sombre eloquence. But 
he sees no redemption possible. Human affairs seem to 
him the sport of unseen powers, and final and general 
ruin the only and probable ending. The poets are full of 
this melancholy tone. The moralists take refuge in the 


sublime truths of Stoicism and create an. ideal city Of 


virtue which shall take the place of the imperial city, 
soon to perish. It may be, it was this idea which lay at 
the bottom of the solemn conviction of the apostles, that 
the end of all things was at hand: the world of the day 
was coming to an end; not even the religion of Jesus could 
Save it. 

What could preserve European society? The usual 


' This seems the condition of the Sandwich Islanders at this 
present time; the race is dying out, and Christian influences do not 
reach it thoroughly enough to save it. On the other hand, the Fijis, 
a more savage, but vigorous race, show the genuine action of the 
Christian Faith, (See Miss Cummings on the Fijis.) 

* Res humane superis ludibrio, 


A FRESH RACE NEEDED. II! 


answer has been, the invasion and intermingling of the 
German and Keltic races. But, as we shall show later, iit 
was not the fresh infusion of barbarian blood alone which 
could renovate the world. The nerthern tribes brought 
‘ndeed a more healthy physical nature into the Roman 
empire, and purer habits, and characters less enervated by 
luxury or corrupted by vice. But they had their own vices ; 
they were cruel, revengeful and passionate ; certain lusts 
had made deep inroads in their natures ; the paternal 
tyranny and a tutelage of woman existed among them. 
Their ideas of justice were much less developed than were 
those of the Romans; and humanity was scarcely under- 
stood by them. Yet from the first, they formed a fruitful 
soil in which Christianity could work. It is altogether 
probable that this Faith can more easily plant itself in a 


wild barbarous nature, with many generous qualities, than \- 


in a more cultivated mind, where the pride and vices of 
luxury have been long growing rankly. Without the 
Christian influences, the northern barbarians might have 
either overwhelmed Roman civilization and brought on a 
night of barbarism, or have been themselves corrupted and 
destroyed by the vices and sensuality which surrounded 
them; in either case, they could not have renovated the 
world, Their influence would perhaps have been like that 
of the Sclavonians on the Greeks ; and no important result 
for human progress have appeared. ‘The advance of man- 
kind for future ages seemed at that time to depend on two 
factors: the power of a system of morality supported by 
supernatural sanctions, or upon Religion ; and a fresh race 
in which this religion was to manifest itself. The Roman 
and Greek races were in their last stages of degeneracy. 
Physical evils and weakness of will had been transmitted 
for generations. Unnatural vices, the sign of final decrepi- 
tude, had attacked all classes. Marriage had become a 


112 GLAS TANGA RES, 


farce, or the feeblest bond. Exposure of children was 
practised to an incredible extent. Thé spirit of cruelty 
was nourished by every device and encouraged by in- 
cessant bloody sports ; even human sacrifices were offered 
at the altars of the gods, Slavery had eaten out the life 
. of the nation and wasted its substance. Owing to forced 
labour, imperial tyranny, bad finance-and wars, an almost 
immeasurable pauperism covered the empire. The only 
help possible seemed in utterly breaking up society and 
introducing fresh blood and new institutions. 

A new religion or a system of exalted morality could not 
penetrate to the heart of Roman society as it then was. 
It reached certain individuals, who became conspicuous 
instances to all ages of its power. But it left untouched 
great masses of men, and _ therefore many of the evil 
habits and practices of a sensual past. This was the 
more true in that the new Faithvsqon pecamena State 
Keligion, and therefore was upheld by force and self 
interest, instead of being left to its own spiritual power, 
It was professed by multitudes who never felfvitsi icons 
verting influences, 

What Christianity could do with an old and degenerate 
race under a State Church, where religion became an CX- 
ternality and faith a matter of government, we see in 
the dreary history of the Eastern empire. The power of 
the system never touched the heart of the people. If 
we except the grand legacy of Roman law, as reformed by 
Christian influences, left by Justinian and his predecessors, 
we can hardly point to one blessing transmitted to the 
world by the nominally Christian empire, whose seat was 
at Constantinople. The Greek population needed the 
German blood. 

What a fresh barbarian race could accomplish in reno- 
vating the world without Christianity, we may see in the 


A BARBAROUS RACE WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY. 113 


effects of the Turkish conquest on the races of the Greek 
empire. The Turks had many of the noble savage quali- 
ties of the ancient Germans; their faith in some points 
was purer than the half-idolatrous, worship of the Greek 
masses, and for this reason and others, they did not 
accept the faith of the conquered races, as did the north- 
ern barbarians. : 

Christianity never mitigated their savagery or-purified 
their passions. Under Mohammedism, Turkey and some 
of the fairest provinces of the world have been kept out of 
the march of human progress. Sensuality and unnatural 
vice are said to prevail as they did in the Roman Empire, 
and even this century has witnessed cruelties and bar- 
barisms such as were common in Europe before the new 
Faith appeared. 


For the coming triumph of Christianity, or even its 
partial infusion into European life, there were needed 
fresh races or peoples, not exposed to Roman corruption, 
who would receive its teachings gladly. These appeared 
in the Germanic and Keltic tribes; and their influence, 
as modified by Christianity, on the moral progress of 
Europe is now to be examined. 


ie 


POW RK OF THE “CHRISTIAN FAITH ON THE HABITS, 
MORALS, AND LAWS OF THE MIDDLE AGES, 


GTAP iE Rast 
POSITION OF WOMAN UNDER THE GERMAN TRIBES. 


WHEN the German ard Keltic tribes first met the in- 
fluences of the Christian Faith, they had about them 
something of the wholesome purity, as well as the savage- 
ness of the vigorous life in the forests and on the waters. 
For some unexplained reason, woman held, in the Teu- 
tonic tribes, a peculiar and revered position. It is true 
that she was under the absolute authority of her husband 
or guardian, and could be sold by the former, or bought 
or beaten or killed. Yet she was the companion of his 
labours and dangers ;! her counsel in moments of great 
peril was looked upon by the tribe as almost inspired ; 
she was often the prophetess of revealed destinies; she 
encouraged the men in their fiercest battles, and it was said 
that, to the soldier despairing and dying, her whisper 
would bring back life and courage, and often arouse 
him to victory.2, Repeatedly in their long struggles with 
the Romans, have women of the Germans deliberately 
murdered themselves, rather than submit to dishonour. 
It may not be reasonable to trust entirely to an epi- 
grammatic satirist like Tacitus, or to a fiery denunciator 
like Salvian, yet under the comparisons of both there must 
be some truth. The purity of German women must have 


1 Tacitus, 
2 Gidé, Condition privée dela Femme. Tacitus. 
117 


118 By SEER MC Cr eB AI bab 


been a striking contrast with Roman impurity ; and ac- 
cording to the “eloquent priest of Marseilles,” the virtue 
of the Gallic Christians made but a poor appearance 
placed beside this heathen chastity. The Teutons are 
represented as at first shocked with the abominations they 
beheld in Roman cities ; they destroyed the houses of lust 
and even slew the women who were instruments of such 
debasing pleasure. The old sagas show the estimate the 
early Teutons put on female purity; and the ancient 
legislation which affixes such severe penalties for even 
innocent familiarities, and which has scales of penalties 
for every approach against woman’s virtue, prove how 
early this was embodied in law and custom. 

Unlike most barbarous or semi-civilized tribes, the 
Germans had _ succeeded in preserving the morals of their 
women measurably pure. It was this undoubtedly which 
retained the physical vigour of these tribes, and gave 
them the bodily force which overwhelmed the degenerate 
Romans, and which has kept their descendants at the head 
of the world’s affairs even to this day. Yet it will not be 
wise to exaggerate these qualities. Such writersas Tacitus. 
and Salvian have no doubt painted their virtues in brighter 
colours in order to throw Roman vice into darker shade. 
Polygamy was not unknown among them, or unnatural 
vice. The absolute tyranny of the husband often ended 
in cruelty and bitter oppression. The provision in certain 
laws that the husband could not, put out the eyes or break 
the limbs of the unhappy wife,? shows to what violence he 
did sometimes proceed. 

It is true that as time went on the archaic form of 
purchase of the wife became more and more a purchase 


1 See Zacitus. Corpore infames. The one guilty of these vices 
was called by the Anglo-Saxons ded/ing ; by the Salians, cynzfus. 
* See Davoud-Oghlow’s Léeislation des anciens Germains. 


GERMAN CHASTITY. I19 


of the guardianship and not of the person of the woman, 
and finally was only the mode of providing a dower. 
Yet in the early centuries marriage with the Germans 
was the buying! of a woman like any other property, and 
one of the first endowments of a wife was the barbarous 
and coarse Morgengabe. Woman was the maiden serving 
her lord, who knelt at his feet during his meal and yielded 
to his every whim.2. There was a coarse and brutal side to 
German marriage, as well as a more elevated. A wife 
rated at so many pieces of silver could not be the ideal 
“socium laborum et periculorum,”’ companion of labours 
and dangers, whom Tacitus pictures. Nothing shows the 
degrading side of this connection better than that provision 
of the Anglo-Saxon law, which we shall quote, in regard 
to the compensation made to a husband for the adultery 
of his wife, wherein a woman seems to be valued like any 
other property, and the offender is obliged to furnish 
another wife in place of the false one. Whatever purity 
the Teutons may have preserved in their native wilds, they 
did not long retain under the temptations of the Roman 
cities. 

When Christianity first touched them they were begin- 
ning to feel these degenerating influences. It was fortu- 
nate for the future of Europe that the elevating power of 
this Religion came to aid the German habit of purity and 
estimate of woman, before Roman and Greek vices had 
sapped the Teutonic character. The best results of modern 
civilization have probably come from the position given 
to women in Europe by German customs, purified by the 


1 According to Grimm (D. Adtlerthiimer) the phrase “ buy a woman” 
for “take a wife” came down into the Middle Ages in many parts of 
Germany. (P. 421.) ' 

4 é, 

8 Leg. Aethel., 32, 


120 GESTA CHRISTI, 


Christian Faith. That modern society has not decayed 

\like ancient, and that pure family-life still supplies fresh 

| forces to races a thousand years old, is due above all to the 

| teachings of Christ, acting on German barbaric virtue and 
respect for woman. The peculiar chivalry in the sentiment 
towards woman which softened manners and_ civilized 
certain classes so much in the Middle Ages, and which still 
ornaments modern society, is a combined product of the 

German and the Christian, and is a feature unknown to 
classic races, 

German Luteluge—The Tutelage or Mund (mundium, 
probably from manus) of the German woman was very 
different from the Roman manus. It was a guardian- 
ship more in the interest of the woman and ward than 
of the husband or guardian. The “subjection of woman” 
rested on a different basis from that implied, and often 
acknowledged in the Roman law. There was none of 
that cynical contempt for her which even the Stoical jurists 
could not avoid expressing as for an inferior and very 
uncertain being. The German theory of tutelage simply 
rested on the fact that she could not bear arms, and there-. 
fore could not appear personally in the only forms of legal 
trial known to that people. She must be represented by 
another who must guard her rights and her interests, It 
has been said by a thorough investigator of this field, that 
throughout ancient German legislation “woman appears 
with a mingled character of feebleness and of grandeur,” 
which would not badly describe her position in modern 
civilization. 

No German woman ® of the higher classes was permitted 


1 Sallantin. De la Puissance Maritale en Droit Romain et en 
Droit Francais. 

* Nuili mulieri liceat in suze potestatis arbitrio, id est sine mundio 
vivere. (/to/harts., p. 205.) 


GERMAN. TUTELAGE., 121 


to live without a guardian.! The tutelage passed from the 
father to the husband.? If the husband died the relatives 
of the widow could liberate the tutelage (mundzum liberare) 
and buy rights of guardianship. The tutelage gave the 
husband the right to sell, punish, or kill his wife. If he 
killed her when innocent he was obliged to pay a heavy 
fine to the parents who had given her to him.’ 

The original form of marriage with-the Teutons indi- 
cated a purchase; with the Scandinavians it is called in 
the sagas bréd-kaup,* kaup mali, mundi-kaup. By the law 
of the Alemanns, if the father demand the wife back, the 
husband must return her and compensate her with forty 
solidi.’ By the Saxon law the future husband must pay 
three hundred solidi® to the parents. 

The law of the Visigoths speaks of the “price” given 
by the groom to the parents;7 the Burgundians give it a 
Similar name; the Lombards call it mefa..- The Francs in 
later time, when it had become a mere form, speak of it 
as “per solidum et denarium.” 

The laws: of king Ine (683 A.D) say: “Gif man wif 


1 Megede unde wif muten aver vormunden hebben an jewelker 
klage. (Sachsensp., 1,46.) Mulier semper potestate viri aut potestate 
curtis regiz debeat permanere. (£d. Nochar., p. 205.) 

2 Maritus est tutor uxoris post deponsationem. (.Sachsensp., 111, 115). 

* Sic maritus uxorem suam occiderit immerentem, componat 
solidos mille ducentos parentibus qui eam ad maritum dederint. 
(Rothar., 203.) 

SE MrEMPNI, 0). 0A. A 22. 

5. , . reddat eam et cum quadraginta solidis eam componat. 
(ZL. Alem., tit. 54.) 

6 Uxorem ducturus ccc. sol. det parentibus ejus. (Zi Sam, tit. vi.) 
Qui viduam ducere velit, offerat tutori pretium emptionis ejus. (Z. 
a7 53+) 

7 Si inter sponsum et sponsz parentes . . . dato pretio, etc. 
(L. Vistg., 111, 452.) Si pater de filize nuptiis definierit, et de pretio 
convenerit, etc. (/dzd, 111, 1, 2.) 


fa 


122 GEOTAGHRISTL 


gebycge, etc.” “If a man buy a wife and the marriage 
take not place, let him give the money and compensate, 
and make dof (compensation) to his surety.” ? 

An ancient historian speaks of marriage as being firmer 
if purchase-money had been paid. The ancient Germans 
could sell wives as an insult or a punishment; the Ice- 
landers had this power; the Frisians are related to have 
sold their wives and children to pay their taxes to the 
Romans. The Saxons, as we have seen, could buy a wife, 
but were not permitted to sell her. The Langobards gave 
away a wife, sometimes to an unfree person, probably as a 
punishment. 

Aethelbert speaks also of buying a wife ;*° the price was 
called a ceap, sceatt, gyft. This king also commands that 
if a free man breaks the marriage tie with a free married 
woman, he shall buy another woman and. bring her to the 
injured husband. And, again, “If a free man take away 
a free man’s wife, let him pay for it with his wergeld, and 
provide another wife with his own money and bring her 
forte other.”° 


By the laws of the Alemanns, he who marries the wife of 


another shall pay forty solidi to the injured husband, and 
restore the woman. If he keep the wife with the consent 
of the husband, he will pay 400 solidi—her full value ; 
if she die before the husband has reclaimed her, he will 
also pay 400 solidi. The children born before the pay- 
ment of her value, will belong to the first husband; if one 


UPd 712, 13.1. 

2 Tutiorem matrimonii fidem censebat quod pretio firmaretur. (Sax, 
Gramm., lib. v. p. 88.) 

3 Leg. Aeth., 76, 82. 

4 Tdem, 32. Si liber homo cum hominis liberi uxore concubuerit 
ejus capitale redimat, et aliam uxorem propria pecunia mercetur, 
et illi alteri adducat. 

5 Idem, 31. 


BUYING A WIFE, . 123 


of them should die, the second husband must pay wergeld 
or compensation ;! that is, the wife and all that belong 
to her, are regarded as the property of him who bought 
her. 

In the old Welsh laws, compiled 1180 A.D. and be- 
longing to a much older period, we find the three stages 
of endowment of the wife existing together—the amobyr 
or purchase-money paid to the father by the husband, the 
cowyll or morgengabe, given by the husband to the wife 
on the morning after marriage, and the agwadadi or dower 
given by the father to the husband All the ancient 
Welsh laws give the wife half the property if she be seven 
years married and separated without fault of her own. 

Scandinavian Customs.—The most ancient German cus- 
toms are those of the Scandinavian races. They are 
stamped with a singular respect for woman; and yet in 
some directions she was especially under subjection. 

Their oldest laws punished the murder of a humble 
maiden more than that of a chief. The weaker sex was 
protected in innumerable ways; and even as late as the 
12th century, a simple kiss forced upon a maiden was 
punished with fine or exile; and in the 15th century, 
a law of Copenhagen orders the adulterous woman to be 
buried alive, and the guilty partner to be decapitated. 

The Scandinavian woman carried arms by a champion, 
and pleaded or sat in justice through a representative. She 
was excluded from judicial debates but could act alone 
in small matters. At times, she had the right to choose 
her own guardian; if her tutor abused his rights she could 
bring an action. She had personality—property which 
she could call her own. If a relative was killed, she took 
a portion of the inheritance, or received the blood-money, 


ST Dax Aleit; ast, 1,2: 
2 Ancient Laws of Wales, Dimetian Code, p. 223. 


124 GESTA CHRISTI. 


though a less share than the males. The price paid to her 
natural guardian was gradually changed here, as every- 
where among the German tribes, under the influence of 
Christianity, into a dower, which was increased by gifts 
from her own family. She received not alone arms and 
horses, but land and houses; so that her independence 
might be guaranteed. Reciprocal fidelity was demanded 
from her and her husband; if he abandoned or ill-treated 
her, he could be punished: by the relatives, and wergeld 
demanded of him. Her dower could be secured by a 
kind of separation of goods. Partnership in property was 
permitted in Iceland between husband and wife, but the 
husband usually had the power of management. At the 
husband’s death, the widow succeeded to a portion of his 
power ; she could dispose of the hand of her daughter, and 
be guardian of the minor children; she was in fact tutor, 
except that she must call in her near relatives for assistance. 
She could perform no acts in law, for in these arms are 
necessary, but she could direct her champion ; she was not 
the legal guardian of her children, but must be gonsulted 
by the “tutor”; she did not fight, but encouraged the war- 
riors; she did not sacrifice, but interpreted and revealed 
the oracles.! 

In Norway, the woman was always in minority, but, 
under certain conditions, was allowed a free administra- 
tion of her property. In Sweden and Denmark, she was 
‘more like a minor and the tutor represented her more 
generally ; he could dispose of her hand, but she could 
refuse, and, if he neglected his duty, choose a husband 
for herself. 

Marriage in Scandinavia could take place without clergy, 
but divorce required a religious rite. 

The wife could demand this, if the husband wasted 

Giad, 


THE SCANDINAVIAN LAW. 125 


their common property. The husband was absolute 
master of the property of the wife,! even of her dower, 
but if they were separated, he must restore all that be- 
longed to her, and from one-third to one-half of their 
common acquisitions. Her natural tutors could always 
act against him in law. She had few separate rights, 
and could contract but few debts without his authority. 
It may be said in general that the oldest and most 
characteristic German customs—the Scandinavian—placed 
woman more under subjection than do those of the tribes 
brought under Roman and Keltic influences. ‘This pecu- 
liarity has affected all modern legislation in the Scandi- 
navian countries. 

Marriage under German Customs—A wife under the 
old German law was in the power of the husband in all 
acts of domestic life, and in civil life she could only act 
through him. She entered with all her property under his 
Mund or guardianship, but he could not dispose alone of 
her estate. In acts of sale, he appears as her guardian, 
not master. At his death, she received a certain portion 
of their common acquisitions, one-third in some tribes and 
one-half in others. There was as yet no partnership, and 
she transmitted no right in the common property to her 
heirs. The husband could dispose of their common goods; 
he alone had the right to sell. The wife’s property con- 
sisted, first of the price of purchase, which gradually became 
changed under the higher views of marriage taught by 
the new Faith, into the dower, and was finally paid by 
the father; secondly, of the “morning-gift ;” thirdly, of 


1 In case of there being no children, it was not considered just for 
the husband to alienate the property of the wife, but when it was done, 
the action must stand inlaw. Nulla prole suscitata vel superstite, 
alienare non debet preedium uxoris maritus; si tamen alicnaverit, 
stabit alienatio. (Lex Scanie Simon, p. 97.) 


126 GESTA:, CHRISTI, 


her private possessions, and finally of a certain portion 
of the common gains. During marriage, the husband 
managed the dower; if he died first, it returned to the 
widow and her children, the principal belonging to the 
latter. If the wife died first without children, the dower 
fell to the husband. 

The Sachsenspiegel, a German code of the thirteenth 
century, says of the wife, that “she must live after the 
will of the husband, and be subject and obedient, for she 
is not competent of herself without her husband, whether 
to do or to leave undone.” ! 

Girls were often excluded from the inheritance of land, 
under the necessities of a warlike time? The position of 
woman was made secondary, and the rights of succession 
were restrained, so that she could not bring too great 
estates to her husband and thus break up a family pro- 
perty. 

Approaches to partnership in property in marriage, 
and equality of rights of the sexes, have been the slow 
gains won by the Christian spirit in Europe. Even in 


the seventh century, the customary wills, bequeathing | 


property, begin to show the Christian influence, equalizing 
the sexes. One of Marculfus’ forms speaks of “the long- 
continued but impious custom” of providing differently 
for the sister from the brother, and divides the estate 
equally between the sons and daughters.® 


* Und sie sol nach seinem willen leben, und unterthenig und gehor- 
sam sein, denn sie ist ihres selbes nicht gewaltig, one ihren man, weder 
zu thun noch zu lassen. (Sachs,, 1,07.) 

* Glanville seems to assert in regard to the old English law, that 
no female could share in any inheritance with males. Mulier nun- 
quam cum masculo partem capit in hereditate aliqua. (Glam., v. 1.) 

* Diturna sed impia inter nos consuetudo tenetur, ut terva paterna 
sorores cum patribus portionem non habeant. Sed ego: Usicut 
mihi equaliter a Deo donati estis filio, (Adare. Form., |. 11, p. 177.) 


—_, 


PREE VMAKKIAGE, 127 


Under the German customs, all sins and errors of the 
wife are severely punished. The husband can be faithless 
without redress. He can send her away, provided he 
give her a dower as large as the original one, and paya 
fine to the king ; he may abandon his home, provided he 
take nothing with him. If she leave him without good 
reasons, she may be suffocated in a ditch (necetur in luteo). 

It is obvious that the position of woman under all the 
Teutonic tribes bore a stamp of barbarism. Something 
of that barbarism has descended in the English common 
law; though here the ascetic principles of the Canon law 
have aided in making her legal position as wife, inferior. 
The influence of the Christian idea as distinguished from 
asceticism of the Church» on the’ ones side) or’ from” the 
coarseness of German custom and law on the other, has 
been continually to make her, in all personal rights, the 
equal of man, and his superior in the moral field. 

free Marriage—As the Roman _ institutions were 
transplanted to Gaul, “free marriage” (terminated at will) 
was especially adopted. Even Christianity did not for 
a time change it. The consent of relatives and friends 
was desirable, but not necessary. Marriage was held good 
without religious ceremonial or dower. ‘The various laws 
of the Christian emperors only demanded the consent of 
the spouses and the testimony of friends. Divorce was 
comparatively easy, and among some of the tribes, was 
possible under mutual consent. Legal concubinage—a 
very different relation from “free marriage ”—was almost 
universal, and even at times winked at by the Church.! 
Justinian regarded it as lawful, and it endured till the 
thirteenth century. 

The new Faith of course acted directly against these 
evils, and everywhere—when allowed its natural power— 


1 Dec. Conc. Toledo (589 A.D.). (Le. xvii.) 


128 GEHSTA CHRISTY, 


tended to abolish free marriage, unlimited divorce and 
concubinage. Even the Church, in the matter of divorce, 
was true to the teachings of the Master. The Council of 
Arles (314 A.D.) endeavoured to recall the Gallo-Romans 
to the respect of marriage, and warns those husbands who 
had surprised their wives in criminal practices, to take no 
others to wife,—a direction more strict than the apparent 
teachings of Christ. Another Council (365) excommuni- 
cated those husbands who abandoned their wives without 
proof of crime, and contracted new marriages ; others were 
excommunicated who repudiated their spouses before the 
matter had been brought to the bishop for judgment. 

The law of Aethelred! is striking. “And we direct 
very earnestly that every Christian man carefully avoid 
unlawful concubinage and rightly observe Christian law ; 
and let it never be that a Christian man marry within 
the fourth degree nor have more wives than one as long 
as she may live. Whoever will rightly observe God's 
law and secure his soul from the burnings of hell.” 


The Pepin Capitulary, addressed (744) to the Council of” - 


Soissons, declares that “during the life of the husband, 
no other ought to marry his wife,’ etc., and that the 
husband is not permitted to repudiate his wife except for 
the cause of fornication.? The Capitularies of Charlemagne 
(789 A.D.) are strongly for the indissolubility of marriage. 
In one he declares that nothing can break a Christian 
marriage,® and calls another union adultery. 

The growing love and worship for the mother of Jesus, 
no doubt strengthened and intensified this respect for 
woman, now increasing in Europe. 


Ae x eel PAT Wil TT, 

* Maritus non debet mulierem suam dimittere, excepto caus forni- 
cationis deprehensa. (ad, 1, 159.) 

* Nequaquam posse uila occasione separari. . 


a - 


THE STRUGGLE. OF (CHRISTIANITY. 129 


The Church, too, set itself vigorously to root out the old 
venal character of marriage. The Council of Tréves (1227) 
forbade the relatives of the bridal pair from taking money 
under any pretence for the giving the woman in matriage.} 
The maternal power introduced into, or strengthened in 
ancient legislation by Christianity, was gradually developed 
until it finally reached almost the level of the paternal 
power. 

The low idea of marriage, shown especially in the 
Anglo-Saxon laws, was elevated step by step. Under the 
Burgundians, two-thirds of the purchase money of the bride 
went to the father and one-third to the woman, showing 
that the archaig idea of sale still survived, This soon 
became only the purchase’ of the woman’s tutelage, and 
later, under the higher influences, a mode of securing the 
independence and safety of the wife. The Norgengabe 
was gradually merged in the dower, and at length under 
the new refinement, dropped out of use. All the various 
forms of protecting or adding to the wife's property ;—the 
purchase money, the morning gift, the Norman dowatre, the 
“thirds” or “half” of the different tribes, the dos ad ostium 
ecclesi@, all have formed the modern “dower.” The ring is 
the only relic of the ancient zed, or pledge, that the man 
would fulfil his part of the money contract. Even as early 
as King Edmund (940-946 A.D.), the influence of the new 
Faith was felt in elevating the idea of the zed or pledge. 
It was then recognised as a promise that “the husband will 
keep the wife according to God’s law, as a husband should 
his wife.” Still a wed is paid at the same time to the 
father for the tutelage (foster-lean) of his daughter ; and 
the husband’s authority is described as that of a baron over 
his vassal; she is said to “choose his will.” Even then, 


+... quocunque colore quesito aliquam pecuniam pro matri- 
monia contrahenda, ete. 


K 


130 GESTA CHRISTI. 


‘on agreement, she was entitled to half the common pro- 
perty if they had children, and she did not choose another 
husband on separation. 

In the time of Henry I. (1070 A.D.) the widow was 
entitled to her dowry (when delivered to her before 
witnesses), and her “ marriage gift,” and one-third of their 
common earnings, as well as her clothing and furniture. 
If she died without children, her relatives divided her share 
with her husband.? 

The Church laboured unceasingly to confirm the dower. 
Many canons tnade marriage illegal unless the woman were 
thus protected.?> And even as early as King Canute, the 
Christian spirit seems to have influenced Iggislation against 
selling a woman in marriage.‘ 

Sir Thomas Smith states that even as late as his time 
(1570), gold and silver were laid upon the “church book ” 
at the door of the church by the husband when the father 
or next of kin gave the bride up, “as though he did buy 
The biae 

The laws of the Germanic and Scandinavian nations 
show everywhere the effect of Christian influence in modi- 
fying the old license of divorce. The West-Gothic later 
laws permitted divorce only for adultery, though earlier 
customs allowed it by mutual consent. 

“Tutelage,’ at first a domestic right in the interest of 
the tutor, became by degrees, under Christianity a public 
charge in the interest of the ward. In the time of Clovis, 


saher, Famund. Lhorpe, pe 255, 

NN e SIRI ARS RAL, POH 

3 Dubium nen est eam mulierem non pertinere ad matrimonium 
nisiilla:mulier. «...*et dotatadegieiuries sake vVidden tee 
Wore Ta ACY 

4 And let no one compel either woman or man to him whom she 
herself mislikes, nor for money sell her, etc. (L. of King Canute, 75.) 

5 The Commonwealth of England, p. 124. 


TUTELAGE OF WOMAN. 131 


the AZund of the woman belonged to her family ; of. 
Charlemagne, to the State. The king became gradually 
the protector of the weak, according to the words of the 
Holy Book, which entitle him the “ Father of orphans and 
refuge of widows.” At his crowning, he took the oath to be 
the “guardian of widows and orphans” (tutor viduaruim 
et orphanorum) and promised officially to be the “especial 
defender of widows and wards” (vidurs et pupillis maximus 
defensor). 

“Let our envoys,” says Charlemagne, “ enquire into the 
condition of all widows and persons incapable of legal 
action ; let them watch that they be provided with skilful 
tutors and friends of justice; if there be any bad tutors, 
let them replace them, because, next to the Lord and the 
saints, the emperor is constituted to be the protector and 
defender of such.” ! 

Whoever injured the widow, was held to have violated 
the “Peace of the king.” A special jurisdiction was 
constituted in her behalf; justice was made easy for her, 
and her complaints were always listened to. Woman was 
not yet made equal to man under the law, but was at least 
protected. 

From the king, whenever his authority became weakened, 
the tutelage passed to the feudal baron. At first, the 
woman ‘could not inherit land, but later she held it 
under the tutelage of the seigneur who represented her in 
law. Subsequently she was permitted the right of choosing 
her guardian, and the seigneur sold his right of tutelage. 
The tutor acted for her in all things. He could choose her 
“champion” (advocatus), and in this way gained the right 
of choosing her husband. Her hand thus became venal. 
Both widow and daughter were sold in marriage, for they 


‘ Quia ipse Dominus Imperator, post Domini et sanctorum ejus, 
quorum et protector et defensor constitutus est. (Cap. 1, 8.) 


132 GESTA CHRISTI. 


became of importance to any baron, as controlling one or 
more men-at-arms with their estates. The baron had also 
an equal right in France over the marriage and landed 
property of the serf (or maznmortable). During the early 
part of the Middle Ages, the daughter of the serf did not 
succeed to the land of her parents. Through these rights 
of the master, arose the extraordinary and brutal “droit de 
seigneur.” } 

Under the softening influences of the new Faith, all 
these “rights” were gradually modified. The right of 
the seigneur over the hand of his ward was first attacked, 
and he was not permitted to affix a high price to his 
consent; at length the right of tutor came to apply only 
to the fief and not to the patrimony; so there became 
two tutors, the seigneur and the natural guardian, andsthe 
right of tutelage was bought and sold. As mercenaries 
took the place of vassals in the service of the king, the. 
fiefs became simple patrimonies, and the two sexes equal. 
The woman owning a fief soon exercised all the, rights 
of sovereignty ; she became guardian, dispensed justice, 
signed treaties, and performed all the public legal acts of 
the man.” 

France was the first to abolish tutelage; charters in 
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries omit any mention of it. 
Outside of marriage was complete emancipation:; inside, 
the old incapacities. After the fall of feudalism, no 
guardian—at least in the cities—was appointed for a girl 
no longer a minor, or for a widow; she had access to all 


1 See on this curious. subject, Delpit, Sur le droit du Seigneur, 
Delisle, Etudes sur la condition de la classe agric. en Normandie, and 
other works on Fas prime noctis. Also Du Cange, on Macheta and 
Cullage. 

° Gidé. I desire to express especial obligations to this most clear 
and thorough writer on this topic. 


GAINS OF CHRISTIANITY. 133 


courts ; could plead and was represented in judicial duels 
by champions selected by herself. The incapacities of the 
Roman law disappear ; she can give bail, appear in courts, 
be arbitrator and render testimony in civil or criminal 
cases. Her incapacity begins with marriage, and is de- 
rived from the German mundium or tutelage. The 
husband can beat his wife, though not to death, and 
chastise her reasonably.!_ The husband is responsible for 
his wife’s offences and has the right to administer her 
property ; all their goods and effects are common. 

In general, it may be said that throughout Europe the 
influence of Christianity tended to purify law of the gross 
German prejudice, that bodily strength was a condition of 
civil capacity, and that woman was an inferior being— 
an impression from which even the Stoical jurists were not 
free. The sex unable to bear arms was gradually freed 
from disability and received an equal part in the suc- 
cession of property, while in marriage the wife retained 
the administration of her property, and gradually acquired 
almost full legal equality with the husband. 

It is not to be understood, however, that in this matter 
the Church corresponded to the Spirit of the Master's 
teachings. The Canon law was a reaction from pagan 
licentiousness, and too much narrowed the field of woman’s 
activity, holding her in too close subjection, and has thus 
been adverse to modern progress. | 

In the north of Europe the old German tutelage of 
woman continued the latest; in the south, other incapa- 
cities from Roman law survived. In every part of Europe, 
there was a preference for male heirs for many centuries. 
In France, it was 1791 before all children were assured 


1. | | battre sa femme, sans mort et sans mehaing, et la castier 


resonablement. (Ord. XII.) 


134 GESTAVCHRISTI: 


equal rights in the family. The Code Napoleon abolished 
all legal distinctions of sex. 

In Scandinavia, it is only in this century that the legal 
disabilities of woman have been diminished, and in some 
directions entirely removed; and in this century also, 
woman may be said to have been legally emancipated in 
Germany. 

In England the old inferiority of woman in marriage— 
an effect of German tutelage—was retained longer than 
in France, which came more under the Roman law. The 
canonists, who held the ascetic idea of marriage as an 
impurity, and of woman as an inferior creature, and a 
source of endless temptations to man, were only too re- 
joiced to place the wife under strict subjection and to 
almost absorb her personality in her husband’s. 

The religious influence, promoting entire partnership. in 
property and interests, seems to have had more weight 
in France than in England 

Of the rigorous English common law Sir Thomas Smith 
says (1571): ‘““And although our Lawe may seeme some- 
what rigorous towards the wives, yet for the most part 
they can handle their husbands so well and so dulcly, and 
specially when their husbands be sicke, that where the law 
giveth them nothing, their husbands at their death of their 
own good will give them all”? Glanville? still earlier 
(1181) says: “It should be understood that a woman can- 
not during the life of her husband make any disposition 
of her dower. For since the wife herself is in a legal 
sense under the absolute power of her husband, it is not 


* Tutelage of woman was only abolished in Wiirtemberg in 1828, 
in Baden in 1835, and in Saxony in 1838; it is said to still exist in 
the Hanseatic towns and a portion of Hanover. Gzdé. 

* Commonwealth of Engiand, p. 125. 

® Glanville, c. iii. p. 16 (Beames). 


THE COMMON LAW. s 135 


singular if the dower as well as the woman herseif should 
be considered to be fully at the disposal of her husband 
elect.” He adds, that the husband can give, sell, or alien- 
ate her dower, and that the wife has no redress, even if 
she have not consented to this disposition of her property.’ 
She cannot even make a will without the authority of her 
husband2 The same author testifies to the influence of 
the Church in confirming her dowry, “for every man is 
bound as well by the ecclesiastical law, as by the secular, 
to endow his bride at the time of his being afhanced to 
her. * | 

The spiritual courts were not always in favour of the 
legal subjection of woman. Thus in the reign of Edward 
III. (1336-1431, A.D.) they held that wives had the right 
to make wills, and that efforts to prevent them were in 
violation of the usage of canon law. The church-door 
dower (ad ostium ecclesi@) seems to have mainly passed 
away in the seventeenth century.* 

The modern idea of absolute partnership between hus- 
band and wife, is not to be found in the old English law. 

There exists still a form of contract, made in the time of 
Edward I., in which a man engaged to sell and deliver his 
wife to another man,® and a historical document speaks of 
a “bought wife delivered in a halter,” as late as 1782,° 


1 Glanville (Beames), p. 63. * Ibid. 

3 Jbid., p. 163. It is clearly not the canonists who put the wife’s 
dower and property so absolutely in the power of the husband. This 
feature belongs to an archaic idea among the Teutonic tribes, of the 
subjection of the weaker sex. 

4 See that quaint book, Zhe Woman's Lawyer, p. 11. 

5 Noveritis me tradidisse et dimisse spontaned voluntate mea, Gul. 
Paynell milite, Margaretam uxorem meam, etc. (Quoted from ot. 
Parl, vol. i. p. 146, by Pearson, in his /estory of England, vol.i.p 601.) 

6 Anne, daughter of Moses Stebbing, by a bought wife, delivered 
to him in a halter, Sept., 1782. (Jdzd., vol. i. p. 601, from Purleigh’s 
Register.) | 


136 GES TARCHRI SL, 


Fleta! defines the legal status of woman as “under the 
rod,” ; 

The conclusion from this very brief resumé of an impor- 
tant topic, may fairly be that the modern social and legal 
position of woman, while it owes much to ancient German 
customs, has been far more influenced by the estimate set 
upon woman and marriage by the Christian doctrines. 

Christianity, it will be seen, has done away with “tute- 
lage,” at least in central Europe; has elevated marriage 
from the idea of a purchase to that of a spiritual and bodily 
union ; it has protected woman by everywhere encouraging 
the dower ; it has sought to make her in its own fields the 
equal of man; and through its influence, more than any 


other, has “the proprietary and personal independence of 


woman” been advanced throughout Europe and the Chris- 
tian world. This has been one of the most important 
contributions of the religion of Jesus to the progress of the — 
race ; its effects are to be felt through all succeeding ages, 


* Queedam sub virgé velut uxores. FV, I, c. 9. 


CHAPTE RAAT: 
PERSONAL FEUDS AND PRIVATE WAR. 


IN all barbaric society, individual injury is at once re- 
venged on the person of the enemy, and the injured, being 
a member of a family, is protected by this association, and 
his wrongs are held as wrongs done to the family oo 
“feuds” (faida) arise, which are so large a part of the 
objects of legislation of the early Teutonic and Keltic 
races. Wherever lands are inherited, there goes with it 
the inheritance of the coat of mail and the family feud. 
Among the American Indians, it is well known that 
the murder of a single member by one of another tribe, 
entails a feud against all of that tribe, until revenge 
is satiated by another murder. The same thing is still 
true of the Arabs, who carry out blood-feuds to an ex- 
treme, and whose faith has not softened this feature of 
barbarism. Philosophers have called the practice the 
habit of “self-help,” as opposed to leaving punishment 
with government. It seems rather the unbridling of re- 
vengeful passions, and belongs to a low state of human 
progress. The Teutonic races, however, early attempted 
to restore order to society by arranging fixed methods of 
satisfying enmities. A careful and elaborate system of 


1 Ad quemcunque hereditas terre pervenerit, ad illum vestis bellica 
et ultio proximi . . . debet pertinere. (Leg. Angl. et Wer. Lex. 
Salic., tit 13, and many Anglo-Saxon Laws.) 

137 


138 GESTATCARISTI, 


fines, or amends, was arranged, first no doubt paid to the 
sufferer or his family alone, and afterwards to the prince 
or king also, as representing the injured community. Each 
member and portion of the body was strictly valued, and 
every possible injury estimated, so that all penal and re- 
pressive legislation was represented by scales of fines and 
pecuniary penalties. A favourite Anglo-Saxon proverb 
was: “ Buy a spear from the side, or bear it!” (Biege 
spere of side oder bere!) Capital punishment was seldom 
employed, as ‘the tribe could not spare a member, and 
preferred fines to death-penalties. The extreme punish- 
ment with the early Teutons was “ out-lawing,” which 
not only banished the offender from the society of his 
fellow-men and made his murder an act of justice, but 
even cast out his body from honourable burial. The first 
effort of the new Faith on the barbaric tribes of Europe, 
was to repress feuds by encouraging fines. King Alfred, in 
the introduction of his laws, speaks of the ordaining of do¢, 
or money-fines to repress feuds, by the legislative assem- 
blies of England, as a special effect of the Christian faith.) 

The codes of every tribe, after its conversion to Christi- 
anity, are filled with rules as to pecuniary amends. The 
two sexes and different ranks of life are carefully estimated 
as to their relative values. It is curious that by the laws 
of the Wisigoths, the compensation, or wergeld (“man- 
money,” or “blood-money”) of a maiden under fifteen 
years was only half that of a youth, while between fifteen 
and twenty years, it was more than that of a man ; between 
twenty and forty it was less, and still later, yet less. This 
people felt among the first the influence of the new power 
in the world, and /azda, or feud, was early abolished, and 
it was declared that the author of the crime is alone re- 


* See Thorpe’s Cod/, and the chapter of this work, on “ Anglo-Saxon 
Laws.” 


FINES FOR CRIMES. 139 


sponsible, and no persons, whether relatives, or neighbours, 
will have to fear any calumnia (offence). (Lang. C. 6, 8.) 
Among the Alemanns and Burgundians faida still 
existed, though restrained, but with the Langobards it 
was declared that: “In all wounds between freemen, we 
have put stronger compositions than the ancients, that no 
recourse be had to feud (/fazda), and it be replaced by 
an amiable friendship.”! And, “ He who for a wound or 
a blow hath received fine for a murdered man, and taken 
care not to exercise faida, yet killeth a man of the other 
party, he will pay to the relatives double the fine.”” Feud 
is raised, or ended, usually by paying a certain fine. The 
steps for abolishing feud were cradual; first the home was 
protected, and whoever killed a murderer in his own home, 
even in anger, paid a fine equal to the legal value of the 
person, provided he were slain at once. But if he were 
killed after consideration, the fine was increased seven-fold. 
And in certain cases, all the offender's goods were confis- 
cated, and even he himself was put to death. In the law 
of the Bavarians, different parts of the house were valued 
even as different members of the body, and suitable fines 
fixed on their violation. Next, certain places were made 
sacred from feud, such as public places like the mad/une 
(or legislative hall), the market, the town, and various 
asylums, and most of all, the church. Then the transit, 
or journey from the house to the mallum, the town, the 
market, the court, or the church was protected. From 
protection in space, the legislation was transferred to time. 
All religious days were sacred from feud, such as Sundays, 
Festival days, the Christmas-tide, Good Friday, Ascension- 
day, and the like. The power of the king, too, imposed 
peace on certain places, such as royal roads, water-courses, 
and forests. Protection was extended also to widows 
1 Leg, Roth., 74- 2 [bid., 6. 


140 GESTA CHRISTI, 


orphans, the poor, and pilgrims. And finally, even draw- 
ing the sword in presence of a bishop, or dignitary of the 
Church or state, was punished by a fine. | 

Among the Salian Francs, we find a decree very early 
(596 A.D.) against feuds. Childebert. II. limits it to murder, 
and declares it a pagan institution which had destroyed 
many families. He orders that unprovoked murder should 
be punished with death, and should not be redeemed with 
fine, “because it is but just that he who has known how 
to kill, should learn how to die.” 4 

The Church everywhere sought in the Middle Ages to 
encourage the settlement of contests by fines rather than 
fighting, and to obtain concord ,by arbitration or through 
judges rather than by litigation. It was earnest in its 
endeavours to determine facts, not by duel, but by wit- 
nesses.” In England, in the seventh and eighth centuries, 
so great was the influence of Christian principles, war itself 
was for a period regarded as antichristian, and a confessor 
at shrove-tide would refuse absolution to a man at feud, 
who would not make peace with his enemy.® ! 

A precious document describes to us the early influence 
of Christianity in substituting punishment instead of fines 
for murder. Pvravda* is the name of the ancient Russian 
code, first collected thirty-two years before the introduction 
of Christianity (988 A.D.). From this we learn that “ King 
Wladimir lived in the fear of God, and murders waxed 
greatly. Then spake the bishops to Wladimir, ‘ Murders 
wax greatly. Why dost thou not punish ?’ He answered, 

* De homicidiis, vero ita jussimus observare, ut quicumque teme- 
rario, ausu alius sine causa occiderit, vite periculum feriatur. Nam 
non de precio redemptionis se redimat aut componat . . . quia 
justum est, ut qui novit occidere, discat moriri. 

? Reeves’ Hist. of English Law (1, 116). 

3 Pearson’s Hzst. of England. 

* Las alteste Recht der Russen. FEwers. WHamburgh, 1826, 


ANCIENT RUSSIAN LAW. 141 


‘T feared injustice’ But they replied, ‘Thou hast been set 
by God, for the punishment of the wicked. and for grace 
to the good. It becometh thee to punish the murderers ; 
but only after much searching out.’ Then Wladimir re- 
jected the werge/d (fine) and punished the murderers.” 
This ancient chronicle shows remarkably the change 
which must have passed through every barbaric tribe after 
the new power began to work. First the bitter and 
deadly feud under the reign of private revenge ; then 
blood-money paid to the person injured or to his relatives ; 
then a fine paid to the prince by one who had no family, 
and afterwards by any offender, as a surety of peace and 
to atone for injury done to the community. The first 
effect of the new Faith is a fresh sanctity given to human 
life. Wladimir feared to execute murderers, lest he should 
do wrong by taking life. But the new view of justice and 
of punishment which also came from this Faith, taught 
him that he must repress evil-doers even at the sacrifice of 
life. The fines which were onte a safeguard of order, now 
became a composition with guilt. Capital punishment 
here was an offspring of the spirit of true humanity. 

Thus one of the great movements in human progress, 
the substitution of law and legal penalty for private 
revenge, was especially aided on the continent of Europe 
by Christianity. | 

It is true that society everywhere tends, under Divine 
influences and the instincts and sympathies of human 
nature, towards this improvement. Yet imperfect faiths 
and other causes retard the drift. Christianity has no 
purer page in its record, than the history of its efforts to 
abolish feuds and blood-revenge, and to draw men under 
law and government ; thus beginning that great work of 
bringing Peace to the earth, which after many ages it shall 
certainly consummate, 


CHAPTER XIIL 
PRIVATE WAR AND PEACE OF GOD.—ARBITRATION. 


ONE of the especial curses of the Middle Ages—a natural 
accompaniment of feudalism—was the practice of waging 
“private war.” This was a privilege allowed in many 
countries only to gentlemen, but in Germany, the custom 
prevailed through all classes, Every one who thought him- 
self wronged, had the right to send a formal declaration of 
war to his enemy. ‘The forms were fixed, a special code 
existed for it; the messenger or ambassador must convey 
the challenge on the same day with the offence; the 
challenger and his messenger must give proof by oath of 
having gone through the necessary forms. If the ambas- 
sador happened to die, the author of the war must prove 
by two compurgators that the challenge was given. If 
the messenger was injured by the one challenged, he was 
dishonoured, and the other was not obliged to observe the 
forms and delays of war. The challenge must proclaim 
openly that the one desired to be the enemy of the other, 
and declared war; as thus (in 1451) “ Know, Imperial cities 
of Ulm and Esslingen, that I, Claude, Duke Von Salz, 
etc, etc, do declare and desire to be your enemies on 
account of Henry etc. ete.! And he who would deliver 
himself to acts of enmity before the time, let him be 


considered brigand, incendiary, and murderer ; and we 
142 


PRIVATE WAR. 143 


desire by this note, sealed by our arms, addressed to you 
publicly, to preserve our honour.” ! 

In France, the author of the war could call upon those 
owing him assistance, and upon his relations up to the 
seventh degree. If they refused help, they lost all the 
advantage of relationship. Two brothers of the same 
father and mother were not permitted to wage war with 
one another ; two “uterine brothers” were allowed the 
privilege. Holy clerks, monks, women and children were 
not bound to join in these personal wars. The towns often 
had the privilege of war granted them in their charters 

Among the instances of private war in the Middle Ages, 
it is related that in the fifteenth century, a cook of Eppen- 
stein,—a sheep of his having been killed by Count Von 
Solms, and the value not being’ paid—sent, with the scul- 
lions, a formal challenge of war to the nobleman. In I501, 
a ruined merchant of Nuremberg is said to have been 
imprisoned for debt. He escaped and demanded from 
the city a heavy sum as indemnity for his unjust imprison- 
ment. The town refused his demand; whereupon he sent 
a challenge of war, seized one of the wealthy citizens who 
had gone to visit his estates in the country, refusing to 
ransom him for less than 3,500 florins, and forming an 
alliance with some barons, plundered and annoyed the city 
till the inhabitants were obliged to yield. 

In another case, a nobleman declared war against the city 
of Frankfort, because a lady residing there had promised 
a dance with his cousin and had danced with another. The 
city was obliged to satisfy the wounded honour of the 
gentleman. Even as late as 1450, there was a challenge 
from the baker and domestics of the Margrave of Baden 
to seven Imperial cities; and in 1462, a baker of the Count 
Palatine defied three cities; and in 1471, the shoe-blacks 


1 Wachter, Bedtrdge, etc. Leaumanotr. 


144 CPO CW RE SEE SET AY § 


of the Leipsic University formally challenged the Provost 
of the city. 

In the fifteenth century Germany was described by a 
Roman Cardinal “as one grand robbery” and that noble- 
man as most famous who plundered most.! 

The Margrave of Brandenburg boasted that he had 
burned 170 villages; everywhere were the desolation of 
farms and the obstruction of commerce. The peasants 
and humble cultivators of the ground suffered most from 
this anarchy. An estate was valued by its convenience 
of situation for despoiling peasants and travellers. 

Of France, in the eleventh century, a monkish : authority 
says, that the whole kingdom was disturbed by incessant 
fightings :—‘‘ Everywhere were robberies, and besieging of 
public roads, endless burnings of houses,” the only causes 
being an unconquerable greed for money.? So terrible 
were the evils that a Church Council held near Soissons 
(A.D. 909) declared that “the cities of France were depopu- 
Jated, the monasteries burned or destroyed, the fields re- 
duced to solitude, so that we ‘can truly say that the sword 
has pierced to the very soul.” Wherever feudalism 

extended, there was private war. Each gentleman and 
nobleman felt it to be a peculiar right of his’class. It 
existed in all parts of Europe; "less perhaps in England 
than elsewhere, owing either to the greater power of the 
Norman kings, or to the deeper working of Christianity. 
In Germany, as we have said, its effects were the most 


* Germania tota magnum latrocinium, et ille inter nobiles gloriosior 
qui rapacior. 

* Erat eo tempore, maximis ad invicem hostilitatibus, totius Franco- 
rum regni facta turbatio; crebra ubique latrocinia, viarum obsessio. 
incendia infinita, etc, (Gesta Det per Francos, 1, 482 ) 

* Depopulatz urbes, destructa vel incensa monasteria, agri in 
solitudinem sunt redacti, ut aut vere possimus dicere, quia pervenit 
gladius usque ad animam. (Ges¢a. Tros., 2, 536). 


PEACE OF GOD. 148 


disastrous, threatening even the dissolution of society. 
There was in that country a greater number of nobles and 
of self-governing jurisdictions than in any other. Each 
city or province had independent powers with especial 
privileges. The interregnum between 1250-73 accustomed 
these powers to uncontrollable license. The Diets seldom 
met, and were not, from their numbers, adapted to settle 
questions of right. In consequence, Germany had no 
court capable of deciding disputes between its more power- 
ful members, or of repressing such evils as private war. 
Lhe “ Peace of God.’—A remarkable mode in which 
the religious spirit aided to raise society of the Middle 
Ages out of this barbarism was through the establishment, 
by the clergy and the mercantile community, of the so- 
called “ Peace of God.” In France especially, in the tenth 
and eleventh centuries, thefe seems to have been a kind 
of religious “revival” of peace. The clergy preached it ; 
religious enthusiasts went from village to village proclaim- 
ing it in the name of Christ the “Prince of Peace srhalye 
relics were brought to public places, on which the wild 
barons swore a vow of peace; great councils were held to 
spread abroad the ideas of brotherly amity, and the Popes 
themselves wrote letters and published Encyclicals to 
recommend the vows and habits of concord to all Christian 
nations. An enthusiasm thus nourished by religion took 
possession of a military and uncontrolled population for a 
period, in favour of quiet and good will towards especially 
the poor, the unbefriended, the weak, and those engaged 
in useful occupations, or in the services of religion. There 
was almost a “crusade of peace” in certain parts of France 
in the eleventh century, One of the old liturgies of this 
period made a special ground of penitence that the peti-) 
tioner had not reconciled two enemies The clergy not) 
2 Peccavi, duos non conciliavi. (Digby. Mor. CAL), G, 12.) 
L 


146 GES TARCARIS TJ, 


being able in such an age to secure all the year for peaceful 
pursuits, induced the wild barons to admit certain days, 
certain places and pursuits, as always resting under the 
protection of a consecrated peace. Whoever violated this 
compact was exposed to every worldly and spiritual penalty. 
He lost his fief if a baron, his other property went to his 
heirs, he was driven out from among Christian men, and 
his body refused Christian burial; if a serf he might be 
punished by the loss of his hand or even of his life. Al! 
\the thunders of the law and religion followed the accursed 
man who broke the peace of God. The holy days were 
protected, the feasts and other Christian festivals, and even 
in each week, the time from Thursday evening to Monday \ 
morning—this period covering the days of the Passion and 
the Resurrection. The peasants were especially guarded 
by this humane impulse, and the cart and grain and cattle 
of the farmer were made as sacred as the altar or the 
church. Christianity, with its usual spirit, led men to pro- 
tect particularly the weak, and every vow of peace included 
the women, children, travellers, strangers, and holy clerks. 
When society was in the chaos we have just described, 
and law existed alone in the strong hand, and all the 
weaker classes were exposed to incessant oppression and 
cruelty from the stronger, we can imagine what it was to 
have created a religious and sacred protection, if. only for 
a time, for all who were trodden down and injured. It 
gave European society its first taste of a rule of law and 
order. The brotherhoods for the Paix de Diew in Francey 
in the eleventh century formed the great point of resist- / 
ance against the feudal barons and their anarchical con® 
flicts. They laid the foundation for the rural Cosinunes, 
which have been so important an element since in the 
French political life, and they formed the first great 
support for the kings when they subsequently endeavoured 


THEPPLEUGE OF PHACE, 147 


to introduce law and courts and royal power in place of 
“Private War”?! among feudal or half independent barons. 

Many religious fraternities to reconcile enemies were 
formed in the Middle Ages. Muratori traces the guilds 
of Italy to missionaries, who in the time of Frederick II. | 
went about endeavouring to appease discords and make 
peace.” One of the conditions for entering a fraternity 
of builders formed at Chartres in the Middle Ages was 
that the candidate must confess and be reconciled to his 
enemies.® 

Among the early efforts to bring about peace in France 
was a meeting of the clergy and Christians at Charons, 
989 A.D., which solemnly anathematized all who should 
plunder the poor and attack the holy clergy. The estab- 
lishment of peace was held to be a means of removing 
Divine displeasure, and in 944, after a terrible pestilence 
in Limoges, the clergy ordered a fast and the “Pact of 
Peace” was concluded by the seigneurs and the duke. It 
is related by the chroniclers that the archbishop “on 
account of the violence of the men of war and the ruin 
of the poor,” forbade divine worship in monasteries or 
churches to those engaged in breaking the peace. 

The form of the pledge of peace, administered by the 
archbishop to the fierce barons, is given by Du Cange: 

ee VV 
Trinity, to all who expect supreme pity . . . As we 
know that without peace no one shall see the Lord; we 
order the faithful . . . that no one shall make an 
attack on a church, that no one shall plunder horses, 
Paulem chickens, ete.) from. the! peasants! J) °. °°.) that no 
one shall attack merchants or plunder them .. . If 


1 See Semichon, La Paix et la Tréve de Dieu. 
2 Ant. Ital., \xxv, 
8 Digby, 9, 12. 


, Archbishop of Puy, in the name of the Holy ~ 


148 GEST A CARLSTY. 


any one do not keep this peace let him be excommunicated, 
anathematized and driven from the Church.” 

The Council of Poictiers (1004 A.D.) attempted to estab- 
lish forms of law to check private war. (If there was a 
quarrel between two dioceses both must appear before the 
seigneur or judge of the county, and endeavour to obtain 
justice.) If one should refuse to appear, the judge must do 
justice and seize upon “the hostage” of the recusant. « If 
he had not the power, he must convoke the princes and 
bishops, and all should unite to attack and punish the 
resisting member, and not cease till he yields to the claims 
of justice. 

These first efforts under the religious impulse to bring 
order out of chaos and to create law in a barbarous society, 
are highly important in the history of progress. 

In 1021 famine and war desolated the country around 
Amiens. ‘To avert these evils the relics of saints were col- 
lected in the churches, and a vow was made over them of 
an inviolable “ Peace of God” during one week, and the 
people took oath, if a quarrel arose, not to resort to rapine 
and burning till they had on a fixed day exposed their 
griefs before the Church. The most terrible forms of ex- 
communication were uttered against those “ Chevaliers 
who would not promise peace,” and “in. the name of God 
the All- powerful, of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost,” 
they were accursed of men. 

These efforts of the clergy succeeded in forming Peace 
Associations, which frequently employed the barons to 
execute the orders of the councils, and to collect the 
tribute (Jaczegzum) which formed a fund to compensate the 
sufferers under violence. Thus early began a kind of assu- 
rance fund or public tax to protect the weak of society. In 
1030, a famine occurred in parts of France, followed by 
years of abundance. The popular gratitude to Providence 


L bbl ee balan C18 OFE8G OL), 149 


was made manifest in councils for the Peace of God. Laws ) 
were passed to forbid travelling with arms, and the church — 
was made an inviolable asylum for the weak and_ perse- 
cuted. The assemblies were electrified with pious ardour, 
and the bishops raised their crosses to heaven, and men of 
the people, holding their: hands in the air, cried “ Peace! 
Peace!” and took God to witness of their “ perfect pact | 
of peace.” } a 
Among the ordinances establishing peace, are those of 
the Council of Limoges (1031), making the church an 
asylum, protecting the clergy, forbidding violence or rapine 
upon peasants, serfs or clerks, proclaiming fines for break- 
ing peace, establishing days of peace, and enforcing it 
on all religious days. Peasants, serfs and their animals 
are protected, and war is confined to the seigneurs. All 
disputes are to be brought before the bishop and his chap- 
ter. This, be it remembered, was two centuries before the 
royal power in France attempted to restrain the warlike 
propensities of the feudal barons. The proclamation 
of peace was somewhat in this wise: “From Thursday 
evening, among all Christians, friends or enemies, neigh- 
bours or distant, peace must reign till Monday at sun-rise ; 
and during these four days and four nights there ought to 
exist a complete security, and every one can go about his 
own affairs in safety from all fear of his enemies and under 
protection of this truce and this peace. Let those who 
observe this peace be absolved by the Father All-powerful, 
by Jesus Christ His Son, and by the Holy Ghost,” etc. etc. 
“Let those who have promised truce and have volun- 
tarily broken it, be excommunicated by God, etc.; let 
these be accursed for ever, damned as Dathan and Abiram 
tome welt ay. ONG in athe days) of \the. trucesof 


1 Quoted from old chronicles, by Semichon. 


150 GESTA CHRISTI. 


God commit a homicide, let him be banished from his 
country, let him depart from Jesus!” etc. !+ 

The decrees of the Council of Roussillon (1047) “ estab- 
lished this peace and this. truce, because the Divine Law 
and the Christian Religion were almost destroyed, and 
iniquity passed all bounds, and charity was cooled,” etc 

The Popes were not behind the councils in encouraging 
peace among the barbarous barons. Pope Nicholas II. 
(1059) and Alexander II. (1068) make public proclama- 
tion sof; the Peace: of i\Godso ‘that. this. Tirst: ;etfortatar 
civilization and order spread into North and Middle France, 
Italy, Spain, England, Normandy and Belgium. 

It is worthy of notice that in a charter of this period, 
from the Archbishop of Bourges (1065), commerce is pro- 
tected by this new pact of amity, and whoever takes refuge 
in a fair is to be especially safe. 

Under Pope Urban II, the Council of Clermont (1095) 
re-affirmed this peace, and ordered that whoever on the 
days of peace should strike man or woman, unless in 
self-defence, should be held a violator of the peace. If 
after a summons by the archbishop he appear in seven 
days, he will merely pay a fine. If he refuse to appear 
he will be excommunicated, and after excommunication 
will pay whatever fine the bishop’s court may set. Who- 
ever kills a man during these days will be exiled for seven 
years, unless he reconcile himself with the relatives of 
the murdered one, and pay a fine, which is to be divided 
between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. Merchants, 
travellers, women,” and the cattle, implements and flocks 
of the peasants are protected. If any baron violated 
this compact, the count and other nobility must prosecute 


1 Hlistoriens de France, quoted by Semichon, 
2 Statutum est ut in omni die, et monachi et clerici, et Nabe et 
quee cum eis fuerint, in pace permaneant, etc. 


A REVIVAL OPT PEACE. I5I 


him, after due warning by the Peace Association. This 
pact was to last three years. In other associations, all the 
nobility over twelve years of age took oath to observe 
this constitution of public order, and, if summoned by the 
archbishop, to take arms and aid, ‘‘so may God and the 
saints aid me!” 

The king gradually put himself at the head of these 
peace associations, and they were no doubt one means 
by which the royal power in France controlled the feudal 
savagery. 

At the end of the twelfth century, the enthusiasm was 
increased by the appearance of one who claimed to be a 
divine messenger. A carpenter of Guienne, working in a 
forest, had a vision of the Virgin Mary, who showed him 
a banner with the words, ‘“ Lamb of God who takest away 
the sins of the world! give us peace!” and. directed 
him to carry this banner to the bishop and invite him to 
preach the “ Peace of God.” He obeyed, and was received 
everywhere as a messenger from heaven, and various noble 
persons and others formed brotherhoods of “Agnus Dei” 
under this banner, and laboured for peace. 

In the thirteenth century, Philip Augustus prohibited 
any one from commencing: hostilities against the friends 
_ or vassals of adversaries until forty days after the offence ; 
this was called the “Royal Truce” or “King’s Quaran- 
Lines” 

In the same century, Friar John of Vicenza traversed a 
great portion of Italy, preaching the “Peace of God,” 
reconciling individuals, and even the feuds of towns. In 
the succeeding centuries, other monks made _ similar 
journeys, and aided to deliver Europe from its ancient 
barbarism. _In the fourteenth century, a great religious ~ 
movement for peace stirred the minds of different nations 
of Europe. Pilgrims with white bands around their necks, 


152 GESTA CHRISTI. 


I Bianchi} marched through various lands, preaching the 
duty of a Christian peace. It is related that in the month 
of October, 1338, there appeared ina church of Rome, in 
the silence of the night, certain unknown persons who 
cried incessantly, “Peace! Peace!” and uttered no other 
words. The people hearing these appeals, went to the 
palaces of the Orsinis and the Colonnas, who were enemies, 
and made peace between them in a truly miraculous 
manner2 A. beautiful letter of the good king of France, 
St. Louis (1276 A.D.), to his son, 1s handed down, showing 
how religion acted in promoting peace. “Dear son, | 
charge thee that to the utmost of thy power, thou keepest 
thyself from making war with any Christian, and if any 
have injured thee, try various ways of recovering thy right 
before thou makest war; and have care to eschew the sins 
that are committed in war,” etc. He is exhorted to spare 
the clergy, and poor people, and the property of those who 
have not injured him; and, best of all, to avoid all wars, 
for that was pleasing to our Lord.’ 

The nobles themselves, in France, feeling the calamities 
of private war, gave bonds of assurance, by which any 
violation of order might be punished; and even agreed 
to refer their disputes to a majority of their own number. 
But it required all the efforts of the Church, the mercantile 
community and the crown, for centuries, before this great 
abuse could be remedied: 9 [tis said that no less time 
thirty councils in different parts of Europe proclaimed the 
Treuga Dei (Truce of God), or des treugarios, And it 
was nof till the fifteenth century that Charles VI. ventured 

1 Muratort. 

2 Lagacio (quoted by Digby, AZo~ Cath., 9, 12). 

3 Chier fiuz, je ’enscigne que tu te gardes a ton pooir que tu 
naies guerre a nul Cretien, et s’il te faisoit aucunes injures, essai — 


plusieurs voies a savoir se tu pensser recouvrer ton droit, etc. 
—Duchesne. 


PEACE OF GOD IN GERMANY. 153 


to put forth a law absolutely forbidding, under heavy 
penalties, private war in France. 

The power of Jesus on human society is seen in the slow 
humanizing of feelings and practices. It is aided often by 
other forces, which are more selfish. All self-guarding 
interests in European communities must have discouraged 
private war; the influence of associated life in towns, the 
prospects of gains in trade, and the struggle of kings 
against feudalism worked to put an end to it. But more 
than any or all of these were the teachings of benevolence 
and unselfishness read each day, or expressed at the altar, 
or from the chancel, and the sentiments of affection and 
reverence cherished everywhere by individuals towards 
Him who is the “ Prince of Peace.” 

Germany.—TVThe Peace of God is said to have been first 
established in Germany in 1081, by the bishop of Liege. It 
was agreed by common consent in his bishopric, that from 
the first day of Advent till Christmas, and from the be- 
ginning of Lent to the eighth of Pentecost, no one should 
carry arms, or be guilty of incendiarism, brigandage, or 
acts of violence ; that no one should wound or kill any one. 
Every free man convicted of such an attempt, would lose 
his heritage, be deprived of his fief, and driven from the 
diocese. Every serf would be punished by loss of his 
property and his right hand. The “peaceful” time each 
week was to be from Saturday at sunset till Monday 
morning. The Archbishop of Cologne soon after intro- 
duced a similar truce in his diocese, with the solemn order 
that “one ought never to forget that the vow,of holy 
peace must be kept with a fidelity as much greater as it is 
made to God and not to man.” During 1093, an associa- 
tion was formed in Germany, of the nobles and princes, 
without the concurrence of the emperor, for a peace to 
last from November for two years till the Feast of the 


154 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Passover. In 1097, the emperor united with it ; in 1103, 
a pact of peace was formed by nobles, bishops, and 
emperor for four years; it was similar to the French 
compact, but included also the Jews Very severe penal- 
ties were affixed to its violation. The council of 1105 
proclaimed the Peace of God; but in general it may be 
said that in Germany the imperial power, more than the 
Church, sustained and protected order. Under Frederick 
II. (1224) the “truce of God” had become the “truce of 
the empire,” with similar days devoted to cessation from 
violence and war. 

The evil of private war, as we have before described, had | 
reached in that country its utmost extreme. All efforts 
against it seemed in vain. ‘Fhe emperor (1255) forbade it 
absolutely, but without avail. Finally cities and nobles 
entered into alliances and associations to form a public 
peace, and to punish those who should violate it; and in 
this mode, the leagues of the Rhine and of Suabia, from 
the twelfth to the fifteenth century, endeavoured to secure 
general order and security. Owing to the greater indepen- 
dence of the rural nobility and of the separate provinces in . 
Germany, the devices which were so successful in France 
failed here. The religious sentiment alone could not put 
an end to this savagery. The last remedy tried was the 
application of an ancient religious custom, under the 
combined influence of the Church and the free cities— 
the formation in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth 
centuries by the barons, nobles, bishops, and cities, of 
courts of arbitration, or Austrdge. 


1The Sachsenspiegel also includes the Jews. Clerici, mulieres, 
monickes, agricole, mercatores, itineratores, piscatores, Fzdez, omni 
die et omni tempore firmam pacem habebunt in personis et in rebus. 
(Ssp., ii. 66.) 

2 Das Austriégal-verfahren ad. D, Bundes. Von Leonhardi. Frank- 
furt, 1339. 


ARBITRATION. 155 


Arbitration.—This practice exerted so strong an influence 
in bringing order out of anarchy, and introducing peace 
instead of war, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries 
through a large portion of Germany, that it is worth while 
to dwell on it briefly. It was an ancient custom among the 
German race, when a case in dispute could not be readily 
decided by the wager of battle, to refer it to wise men of 
the tribe for arbitration. Yet even as. late as the tenth 
century, an Emperor of Germany (Otto I, 938 A.D.) 
refused to decide certain difficult cases by. arbiters, and 
preferred to refer them to the sword;! and another 
important legal question—whether the sons of brothers 
should inherit property equally with the fathers or ances- 
tors—was decided in Otto’s reign (942) by the sword, in 
favour of the former. When Christianity became a living 
force among these tribes, the practice of arbitration was 
strengthened and reinforced by the words of Christ to His 
disciples: “If thy brother sin against thee, go, show 
him his fault between thee and him alone; if he hear thee, 
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, 
take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two 
witnesses, or three, every word may be established. And 
if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the congregation,’ 
etc. (Matt. xviii. 15-17); and by the words of Paul, “If 
then ye have to judge of things pertaining to this life, do 
ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church ! 

Is it so, that there cannot be found among you 
one wise man who shall be able to decide between his 
brethren, but brother goeth to law with brother and that 
before unbelievers? Nay, already it is altogether a defect 


1 Von Leonhard. 

2 Rex autem meliori consilio usus noluit viris nobiles ac senes populi 
inhonesti tractari; sed magis rem inter gladiatores discerni jussit, 
etc. (Anmnal. de rebus Saxon. etc., quoted by Leonhardi, p. 20.) 


156 GESTA CARIS FI. 


in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another” (1 Cor. 
VINE Ty 7): 

It became a habit of the Christians to refer their 
disputes and difficulties to their own brethren, or their 
leaders and overseers, for decision. The bishops’ trials 
(audientie episcopales) became a regular part of the legal 
machinery of Christian society. Their decisions!.were 
often without appeal; and on the request of one of the 
litigants even purely civil cases could be decided by them. 
The habit of referring contests and disputes to the clergy as 
arbitrators, came down in Germany into the Middle Ages. 
And at length in those centuries we have mentioned, there 
seemed no other way out of the anarchy of society, than 
by some new application of this principle. The feuds 
of the barons with one another, their disputes with the 
peasantry, the contests of city with city, or of each with 
the nobility, the differences of the clergy with the parishes 
or with the barons, were continually referred during the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to Awstriége or courts 
of arbitration. These arbiters were sometimes named in 
treaties, sometimes chosen by mutual consent, or appointed - 
by neutral persons, or taken by lot. 

Leonhardi,? who has written a learned work on this 
subject, gives a list of numerous arbitrations during these 
centurics, and in almost all cases the arbiters are the 
clergy. One of the first Austrdége reported is in 873, in 
a dispute between the Emperor Lewis and the Bishop 
of Strasburg, which ‘is referred to suitable persons among 
the neighbouring citizens and among the faithful.’ 

AA few cases are also related in the succeeding centuries, 


1 Cod, Theod., tit. i., tit. iv. de jud. episcop. 2 Leonhardt, p. 20. 

* Ut per idoneos circa vicinos et fideles nostros, fideliumque 
nostrorum homines plenissime sub sacramento inquiratur et ad 
finem vite usque. (Leonhardt, vol. i. p. 20.) 


FORMS OF ARBITRATION. 157 


In the thirteenth century they are the most common; and 
various leagues are formed during this period among the 
free cities and others, for mutual support and defence, all 
of which contained provisions for settling disputes, feuds 
and contests by arbiters. 

The Forms of Arbitration.—These present a remarkable 
evidence of the religious sentiment working. Thus in the 
following, from Martene, quoted by Digby, “I, Henry, by 
grace of God bishop of Liege, mindful, nay solicitous of 
our Lord’s example, who, coming into the world, brought 
peace to men of good will, and who, departing from it, 
left peace to his disciples, make known to all, present 
and future, how the contention between the Church of 
St. Peter of Liege and the Monastery of St. Hubert shall 
be decided,” etc.! 

Or this in 1100 A.D.: “ As the state of the whole Church 
is consolidated by the pacific bonds of Charity, and as 
the unity of holy charity is dissipated by the pestiferous 
scandal of dissensions, whoever wishes to come to the 
vision of eternal peace, must of necessity study with all 
diligence to keep peace, if possible, with all men, and 
especially with brethren; therefore we, the Canons of the 
Church of M——,, loving peace and concord, and desiring 
to take away from the midst of us the evil of discord, have 
put an end in this manner to the dispute between us and 
the Monks of St. Vincent,” etc.’ 

This form breathes a like spirit. It is found in the 
pact of reconciliation between Henry, Archbishop of 
Tréves, and Theoderic, Abbot of St. Matthew, and a 
eertainemonk at Rome. |“ hes pacific: hearts..of those 
persons enlightened by truth and by the doctrine of Christ 
teaching peace to men, though sometimes liable to be 


’ Mor. Gath., 3, 82. 
2 Ap. Mariene. (Digby, 2, 83.) 


158 GESTA CHRISTI 


torn by the enemy of the human race, sowing the seeds 
of hatred, yet in the process of time, we are sure to expel 
the darkness of that chief maligner, and to recover peace, 
which puts an end to all strife,” ! 

A striking instance of arbitration is given in the Rhenish 
League (1254 A.D.), which stipulates with its confederates, 
that in order to remove every occasion for contest and 
every source of discord, they should each choose four men 
who should together amicably decide all questions which 
arose between them.” Many cities, knights and parishes 
united with this confederation on these conditions. A 
characteristic instance of the use of Awstrdége appears in 
the sixteenth century, when a contest arose between the 
Schiwabian League and the rebellious peasants of Baiers- 
furth (1525 A.D.), where each party were to, choose two 
arbiters of honour and position, who were to be laymen.’ 
Another also is mentioned in 1324, when a very ancient 
feud between the Archbishop of Mainz, Count of Busdeck, 
and Count John of Nassau, with the Landgraf of Hesse, 
was settled in this way ; and again where (1350 A.D.) a dis- 
pute between the Emperor and the Count of Brandenburg 
was thus reasonably and peacefully closed.* 

These courts of arbitration came first to assume a fixed 
and legal position under Maximilian I. (about 1500 A.D.) ; 
and thus were the foundation of the Austragal Court of 
the German Confederation in modern times. 

In 1495, Maximilian put under the ban of the empire, 
and fined to the amount of 2,000 marks gold, every city 
or individual who accepted or gave a challenge to private 

1 Quoted by Digby. (3, 83.) 

2 Ad removendum autem omnem litis occasionem aut discordia 
fomitem ... quatuor viros inter nos elegimus, etc. (Quoted by 
Leonhardi, vol. i. p. 26.) 


3 Leonhardt, vol. i. p. 45. 
A T0ide Ola. Deeds 


END OF PRIVATE WAR. 159 


war. This was the formal, though not the final, close of 
the right of “diffidation,”! as it was called. 


Such then was the arbitration of the Middle Ages. In 
other words, the Christian principle, aided by self-interest, 
put an end during those centuries to private war in 
Germany ; it lingered, however, till the end of the sixteenth 
century. 

In Spain and Italy, it was also abolished by the com- . 
bined influences of the Church and of mercantile society ; 
in the former, Charles V. (1519) enforcing by a special 
law all previous prohibitions of it. 

In Iceland the Gragas hand down to us a form of 
anathema against whoever shall break the Peace of God. 
‘Let him be proscribed with celestial anathemas, wherever 
men pursue the wolf, or Christians visit the Church, or 
pagans make sacrifice, or mothers give birth to infants, 
famintants call. upor: their) mothers, etc,, leb--him. be 
accursed ! ” 

Here, too, as in other countries, Christianity aided to 
bring order out of chaos. 


1 Du Cange (Déifidatic). Fiebant etiam diffidationes plerumque 
scripto ad hostem modo. The word implied a breaking of faith or 
peace ; and thus war between individuals, 

Grotius defines difidare as “to declare war.” (3, 9.) 


CHAP HAR RSs xan 


WAGER OF BATTLE AND ORDEAL. 


ONE of the grandest fruits of the human intellect and 
conscience combined has been the system of the Roman 
law. It carried the principles of justice and reasonable 
administration to the remotest and wildest tribes of the 
empire, and everywhere, to a certain extent, substituted 
iaw for force, reason for passion, and equity for abuse 
and injustice. Whatever were the inconsistencies of its 
practical execution, and the abuses of its administration, it 
rested on some of the sublimest principles attainable by 
the human reason, and exerted a most profound influence 
on the progress of mankind. We have seen, however, 
how ineffective Roman law was to eradicate some of the - 
worst abuses of antiquity, and how much Christianity 
modified it under the later emperors. 

With the rise of the northern barbarians and the dis- 
memberment of the empire, this grand work of antiquity 
was submerged by the current of barbarism and super- 
stition, and the progress of the world, in regard to right- 
reason and equity, was put back for centuries. In this 
retrogression the Christian religion had no share. Its 
principles are in harmony with the best of the Stoical 
jurists, and the rules of equity and fairness which form so 
large a part of the system are such as the Christian faith 
especially commends. The Church, however cannot 


claim any such credit. It did indeed do great service in 
160 


WAGER OF BATTLE. 161 


repressing among the German and Keltic tribes, violence, 
cruelty, and lust, as we shall abundantly prove; it steadily 
resisted some of the worst tendencies of the Roman 
law ; but it permitted and encouraged the childish super- 
stition which for ages substituted the compurgators’ oath, 
and the ordeals of cold water, red-hot iron, the cross, 
-and the sacrament, for the grand principles of evidence 
of this great body of law; covering Europe with relics of 
a childish age and retarding human progress for hundreds 
of years. The great principle of the Stoical jurists, that 
the defendant is acquitted if the accuser do not prove his 
case,! was reversed for almost a thousand years in Europe, 
and the burden of proof was thrown on the accused by 
innumerable superstitious conditions and observances. In- 
stead of the old Roman rule, that a negative need not be 
proved, was adopted the opposite maxim, and the greater 
portion of the tests required the negative side to be made 
evident.” | 

It is true that the Church often opposed ordeals, but it 
finally surrounded them with every ceremony to make them 
impressive, and in many cases required them as religious 
obligations. 

In another of the great abuses of the Middle Ages, the 
“wager of battle” to decide disputes and legal differences 
—a relic of barbarism which lasted till this century in 
England—the Church has a better “record,” and the spirit 
of Christianity had much to do with its final disuse and 
abolition. But that for a thousand years, in Europe, a 
title to the ownership of real estate, or a legal difference, 
could be settled by duel, under the very shadow of the 
Church, shows how slow was the progress, and how feeble 
the influence, of the Christian Faith. 


1 Accusatore non probante, reus absolvitur. 
2 Lea, Superstition and Force. 


162 GES EA CHRIST, 


One legacy Roman law left to the world, which has been 
| a storehouse of curses and evils, the use of torture for the 
' accused and for witnesses. This horrible enormity, which 
so shocks all sentiments of justice and humanity, endured 
in Europe from the time of the Twelve Tables to the 
present century. Every principle of Christianity is against 
it, and the power of this Religion has finally eradicated 
it; the Church, for several centuries being more inspired 
with its faith, opposed it, but at length, as we shall see, in 
the interests of bigotry, accepted this bequest of German 
barbarism and Roman law, and inaugurated an era of 
cruelty and injustice rarely surpassed in the world’s annals. 
The Inquisition is the great blot on the historical Church. 
For centuries all principles of justice, reason, and humanity 
were forgotten, and the name of the Teacher of love became 
the cover for deeds, of cruelty and injustice, equalling the 
worst under Greek and Roman faiths. As the study of 
the Roman law revived in the twelfth and thirteenth cen- 
turies, this evil feature was eagerly adopted in the com- 
bined interests of centralized power and of ecclesiastical 
superstition. The commercial spirit and the Spirit tote 
the free communes, struggled against it, but it was only 
uprooted by the gradual spread of Christian principles, 


Wager of Battle,—Tacitus says of the warlike tribes who 
are the progenitors of the most vigorous races of the 
present day, that they believe “God is especially present 
with those in battle.’ Two hostile tribes, before engaging 
in hand-to-hand strugele, frequently deputed a courageous 
warrior from each to contend for the cause at issue, and 
the result was thought to show on which side the god 
of battles inclined. The combat, whether between two 


* Deum adesse bellantibus credunt. (Gervz., 9.) 


WAGER POMS LAT LE. 163 


or many, seemed in its uncertain issue to be especially 
connected with unseen powers,' and the consciousness of 
rectitude, no doubt did often strengthen the arms, as the 
conviction of guilt would weaken the muscles, of one or 
the other combatant. The single combat, to the minds of 
the northern races, became the great test of truth. This 
was especially the fact after the experience of general 
perjury and falseness, introduced by the ancient custom of 
the compurgators’ oath. Under this peculiarly Teutonic 
custom, which long remained in English jurisprudence 
under the name of “wager of law,” a person accused of a 
crime appeared to deny it surrounded by a number of 
compurgators, who swore not to their knowledge of the. 
facts, but as partakers in the oath of denial.2 This legal 
practice, which existed in Europe.as late as the sixteenth 
century, offered irresistible temptations to false swearing, 
‘and to the bold and honourable Northman, a usage which 
tested the truth by his own right arm and at sacrifice of 
‘his blood seemed infinitely preferable to this taking refuge 
'behind the oaths of associates. Wager of battle took the 
_ place of the compurgators’ oath in both civil and criminal 
cases. It suited the fierce habit of the German and Keltic 
tribes to decide doubtful cases by the stronger hand ; and 
the settlement was in harmony with that singular defect of 
barbarian jurisprudence for a thousand years in Europe (of 
which we have already spoken), which, above all, showed 
the loss of the influence of Roman law upon civilization— 
namely, the throwing the proof of a negative on the 
accused. 

Under the compurgators’ oath, the wager of battle, ordeal 


1 An old German proverb said: “ Davon sollen wir Gott getruwen, 
das er den Kampf nur nach Recht sheyde.” 

2 Lea, Superstition and Force, p. 24. Reeves’ History of English 
Law. 


164 “GESTA CHRISTI 


by fire or water or the sacraments, and the system of tor- 
ture through so many centuries, Europe forgot the rules 
of equity and the maxims! of the Stoical jurists, and 
threw the great burden of proof on the defendant. Cen- 
turies of injustice to unfortunate persons in every portion 
of Europe prove what harvests of wrong a single unjust 
principle will sow in the world, while they measure the 
blessings which the noble ideas of the Stoical jurists have 
scattered through every people which has felt the influence 
of Roman law. 

Wager of battle is to be distinguished from the duel, 
though eminent writers confuse them. It is.essentially a 
judicial trial; like. war, an appeal to the god of battles, 
conducted under given ceremonies and conditions, where 
the penalties were fixed and legal. To nearly all 
Europe outside of Roman law, it was as natural once to 
determine a title to real estate, or a question of law and 
evidence, or matters of mortgage or debt, or questions con- 
cerning service or slavery, or the guilt of a criminal charge, 
or innumerable similar questions, by single combat, as it 
is now by juries, courts, and arbitration. 

Nearly all the tribes which overthrew the Roman empire 
held to this practice ; it belonged to the Keltic, Slavonic, 
and German races. Singular enough, it is not found in the 
Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Danish Codes, and is believed 
to have been introduced into England by William as a 
Norman practice. The absence of mention of the judicial 
combat in the laws of the Anglo-Saxons is not, however, 
conclusive evidence against its practice.® 


The Goths, who were more under the combined influ- 
a, cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla 
sit. (Cowst., 22. De prob. iv. 9. Quoted by Lea.) 

* An apparent allusion to judicial combat occurs in the laws of 
Ienryeliw tide 20) 


JUDICIAL DUEL. 165 


ences of Roman law and Christianity, do not appear to 
have retained the trial as judicial. The practice gained 
its greatest power in the custom of challenging witnesses. 
Any litigant finding his case going against him, could accuse 
a witness of perjury, and challenge him to the combat, 
thus adjourning the case and deciding it. This privilege 
was finally extended to the power of challenging the court 
) itself; and the extraordinary spectacle was presented of a 
defeated suitor fighting with the judge who had decided 
his case adversely. 

The mode of conducting these combats will, perhaps, be 
best shown by referring to the English practice. In the 
thirteenth century, the accused had the right to choose 
only in doubtful cases, between trial by jury and combat. 
The latter for a long period determined all questions of 
fact ; and in the reign of Henry II. it decided in pleas con- 
cerning freehold, and in writs of right in regard to land 
or goods sold, debts upon mortgage or promise, sureties 
denying suretyship, validity of charters, manumission of 
serfs, questions concerning service, ctc., etc.! 

According to the English law, the defendant in doubtful 
cases could choose his trial, either per carpus or per patriam, 
by battle or by jury. But in certain cases the justices had 
the right to control the mode of trial: thus, if a person was 
accused of poisoning another, he was compelled to accept 
the wager of battle or to confess ; and again, other cases 
were too clear to admit of risking any doubtful decision, 
When the trial by battle had been decided upon, the defend- 
ant gave security that he would defend his case, and the 
plaintiff that he would maintain his appeal. Each made 
oath; the plaintiff in a form of this nature: “ Hear this, O 
man! whom I hold by the hand, called John by the name 


1 Reeves’ Hist. of English Law. See also Mirror of Fiusticese 
(Trans. by W. H., 1768, p. 160.) 


166 GESLTAV CHRISTE, 


of baptism, that thou art perjured because thou didst 
wickedly and feloniously kill my brother, etc, etc, and 
this I saw, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.” } 

Both parties were then committed to two knights or 
“other lawful men” to lead them to the field assigned. 
Each then took another oath of innocence, and, after cer- 
tain ceremonies, engaged in combat. If the defendant 
supported the combat all day till the stars appeared, he 
was acquitted. If the plaintiff was defeated he suffered 
capital punishment under certain circumstances and for- 
feited all his goods, both his own and those which would 
come to his heirs. If he withdrew his charge when he 
appeared on the field, he was committed to gaol. 

In cases of suits in regard to titles of land, the form of 
oath was thus: “I am ready to prove it by my freeman, 
John, whom his father at his death-bed enjoined by the 
duty he owed him, that if at any time he should hear of 
a suit for this land, he should hazard himself in a duel for 
it, as for that which his father had seen and heard.” 2 

Glanville gives the following form in a suit against a 
tenant: “J demand against this H., half a knight’s fee or - 
plough-lands in such a village, etc. and this I-am ready 
to prove by my freeman, I., and if any accident happen 
to him by such a one, or by a third, etc.” ® 

The tenant had the right to defend himself upon the 
the king’s grand assize, and so prove his right to the land. 

The Mzrror says: “In personal combat for felony none 
can combat for another, but in actions personal it is lawful 
to make battle by their bodies or by loyal witnesses.” 
“The battle of two men sufficeth to declare the truth, so 
that victory is holden for truth.’* “And in cases where 


1 Bracton. 2 Reeves. Bracton. 
3 Beame’s Glanville, p. 41. 
* Mirror of Fustices. A. Horne, trans. 1646, pp. 155, 158, 159. 


JUDICIAL DUEL IN ENGLAND. 167 


battle could not be joined, nor was there any witness, the 
people in person acting were to help themselves by the 
miracle of God in this manner, as if the defendant were a 
woman.” 

Green, in his History of England, gives a striking in- 
stance of the wager of battle and its effects. 


“ At Leicester,” says the historian, “one of the chief aims of the 
burgesses was to regain their old English jury trial (or practice of 
compurgation) which had been abolished by the Earls in favour of the 
foreign trial by duel. It chanced, says a charter of the time, that two 
kinsmen, Nicholas the son of Acon, and Geoffrey the son of Nicholas, 
waged a duel about a certain piece of land, concerning which a dis- 
pute had arisen between them, and they fought from the first to the 
ninth hour, each conquering by turns. Then one of them fleeing from 
the other till he came to a certain little pit, as he stood on the brink of 
the pit and was about to fall therein, his kinsman said to him, ‘ Take 
care of the pit, turn back lest thou shouldest fall into it” Thereat so 
much clamour and noise was made by the bystanders and those who 
were sitting around, that the Earl heard these clamours as fayvotl as 
at the castle, and he inquired of some how it was there was such a 
clamour, and answer was made to him, that two kinsmen were fight- 
ing about a certain piece of ground, and that one had fled till he 
reached a certain little pit, and that as he stood over the pit and was 
about to fall into it, the other warned him. Then the townsmen being 
moved with pity, made a covenant with the Earl that they should give 
him the pence yearly for each house in the High Street that had a 
gable, on condition that he should grant to them that the twenty-four 
jurors who were in Leicester from ancient times, should from that time 
forward discuss and decide all pleas they might have among them- 
selves.” 


The customs of continental Europe varied somewhat 
from the English in regard to the judicial combat and 
its results, but it is not necessary to particularize them. 
Throughout the.whole Christian world, for many centuries, 
the personal battle was the final decision of cases of law. 
Beginning with criminal cases, it was soon transferred to 
civil, and it survived in parts of Europe, at least nominally, 
to the present century. Its great power in the Middle 


168 GLST A 'GARTIS TY. 


Ages was as one of the privileges of the fighting class, the 
feudal aristocracy, while it appealed to the superstition of 
all classes. | 

In the struggle everywhere between the crown and 
the nobles, and in the growing influence of Roman law 
after the thirteenth century, this was upheld as one of the 
institutions which resisted the Roman tendency to central- 
ization and royal encroachment. Its great enemy was the 
new spirit which Christianity had spread abroad in the 
world, and which thus far had especially imbued the com- 
mercial classes. These everywhere opposed trial by battle, 
and one of the privileges granted to commercial com- 
munities was often freedom from this necessity.) These 
communities were also especially influenced by Roman 
law, and in the Admiralty law which they derived from it, 
there is no mention of trial by battle. 

The Church in its attitude toward this barbarous practice 
was fora long time faithful to the spirit of its professed 
Leader. Both the Councils and the Popes declared boldly 
against it. In 1080 the Synod of Lillebonne adopted a 
canon, punishing by fine any of the clergy who should | 
engage in these combats without special licence. The 
practice however was still continued, though condemned by 
Popes Innocent II., Alexander III., and Clement III. 
Celestin III. even deposed the clergy who had engaged 
in it, while all these prohibitions were confirmed by 
Pope Innocent III. and the Lateran Council of 1215, 
and as late as 1492 the Synod of Schwerin published a 
canon prohibiting Christian burial to those who fell in such 
combats.’ 


' Ferrum . . . pugnam, aquam vobis non judicabit vel judicari 
faciet. (From a charter granted to Bari by Roger, King of Naples, 
1132 A.D.) MWuratord, quoted by Lea. See Muratori, Ant. /tal. 

a Lady Ou laos 


CHRISTIAN: OPROSTIVON, 169 


Louis VIL, in granting the privilege to certain of the 
clergy of exemption from this combat, said boldly, “We 
hold that these wicked habits should be uprooted from the 
foundation.” ! The power of Christianity tended naturally 
to do away with this relic of barbarism, and where it was 
freshly introduced at once affected legislation. 

One of the best known arguments against the practice 
was written by St. Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, as 
early as 826 A.D., in a treatise entitled; “Liber contra 
judicium Dei.”’? In his letter to the Emperor he says, 
“ The faithful mind must not suppose that Almighty God 
desires to reveal the secret things of man by hot water or 
hot iron, much less by cruel battle.”3 It is a foolish and 
proud presumption to suppose that the Divine judgments 
can be manifested by battle. “ Such contests are strongly 


_ opposed to Christian simplicity and piety and adverse to 


the doctrine of the Gospels.’® All these efforts of the 
Church did not however prevent its. spread through 
Europe. The first code in which the judicial duel was for- 
bidden was among the most warlike tribes of the German 
stock, the Norsemen of Iceland, about the same time with 
the introduction of Christianity (loII A.D.). The Danes 
soon imitated the Icelanders. Both reforms were clear fruits 
of the doctrine of Jesus. Prince Luitprand, in his laws of 


1 Lea, p. 148. Tenemus pravas consuetudines fundetus extirpari. 
Duellz et aliz purgationes vulgares prohibitz sunt. 

a-see ot Agobard, Lp. Acc: L. ‘operas -Parisns; MDCV. Ad \Im- 
peratorem de duello, p. 103. Contra damnabilem opinionem putantium 
divini judicii veritatem igne vel aquis vel conflictu armorum patefieri. 
(p. 287.) 

3 Ad Ludov. Imp. Epist. Sie Pace: 

5 Talia certamina vehementer contraria sunt simplicitati et pietati 
Christianze et doctrinze Evangelicz nimis adversa (S¢. Agod., c. 7.) 

Proinde experimenta hzec appellata fuere Judicia Dei quasi ad 
omniscientis Judicium controversia deferretur et inde justa sententia 
expectanda foret. (Muratori, De /udictts Det.) 


170 | GESTA CHRISTI. 


the Langobards,! even earlier (712 A.D.), protests against 
this settlement of disputes, though he avows himself power- 
less to prevent it, and calls the law, “impiam legem.” 
Another legal measure taken against it was by the 
Emperor Frederick II. in 1231, in his Neapolitan code ; 
he pronounces the trial by battle as more a kind of fortune- 
telling than legal proof, and equally inconsistent with 
common law, nature, and the principles of equity.” | 
The Emperor Rudolph of Hapsburg, in his charter to 
the Duchy of Styria, in 1277, forbade the wager of battle. 
Other princes also prohibited it. Alfonso the Wise of 
Castile, in his celebrated code, Szete Partidas, stigmatized 
the combat as an “effort to tempt the Lord our God.” 
The Duke of Burgundy, Philip le Bon, abolished the 
wager of battle, and in his code of 1459 there is no mention 
of it. In Hungary it was prohibited in 1492, and in Italy 
in 1505.4 
The Christian spirit, as affecting the imperial Roman 
code in regard to gladiators, worked upon the Middle 
Ages with respect to the “champions” employed in these 
judicial combats. All the contempt and disabilities thrown - 
by the Christianized Roman law on the former, were 
transferred by those following Roman legislation to the 
hired fighters in these duels.’ They were held incapable 
of being witnesses or of succeeding to property, and even 
their children were disgraced. 


1 Tf by respect for the usages of our Langobard realm we cannot 
forbid the judgment of God, it none the less appears to us uncer- 
tain, having learnt that many persons have lost their causes unjustly 
by animpious combat. (Quoted by Lea, Lex Long., p. 63.) 

2 Non tam vera probatio quam quedam divinatio . . . quena- 
turae non consonans, a jure communi deviat, nequitate rationibus non 
consensit. Lea, p. 149. 

3 Que quiere tentava Dios nuestro Sefior. 

ge beaee 5 Lbid. 


APPEAL OF MURDER. 171 


All these influences, however, were slow in uprooting 
this unreasonable practice among the nations of Europe. 
It endured in Russia till the middle of the seventeenth 
century. It was not abolished in England in civil cases 
till the reign of Elizabeth. In 1571, in order to determine 
a disputed title to real estate, Westminster Hall was forced 
to adjourn to a duelling ground at Tothill Fields, “ not 
without great mental disturbance of the learned lawyers” 
(non sine magna jurisconsultorum perturbatione). All the 
forms of combat were passed through, but the contest was 
compromised.! 

In criminal cases, a man indicted for a capital offence, 
was allowed to confess his crime and to charge any one as 
accomplice. This appeal was usually decided by wager of 
battle. In 1539 there was legislation on this, and even in 
the seventeenth century instances occurred of the judicial 
duel; Sir Matthew Hale, at the close of the century, 
speaks of it as “an unusual trial at this day.” Sir 
Thomas Smith, as late as near the close of the sixteenth 
century (1570-77), says of the judgment by battle: “This 
at this time is not much used, partly because of long time 
the Pope and the clergy, to whom in time past we were 
much subject, always cryed against it as a thing damnable 
and unlawful,” and partly,as he explains, because of the 
natural change in manners and customs. “ But,” he adds, 
“T could not learn that it was ever abrogated.”? And of 
the appeal to battle in murder cases, he says: “ The Popes 
of Rome, and men of the Church who of long time have 
had dominion in our consciences, and would bring things 
to a more moderation, have much detested this kind of 
triall and judgment. . . . This kind of triall of long 


1 Shell. Gloss., p. 103. 
2 The Commonwealth of England, 1589, p. 100. 


172 GESTA CHRISTI. 


time hath not been uscd. . . . Nevertheless, the law 
remaineth still and is not abolished.” 

In 1775, one of the grievances of the American colonies 
was being deprived by English legislation of the right of 
wager of battle in criminal cases ; that is, a man acquitted 
of a charge of murder could be again prosecuted by the 
nearest relative, and the question was to be determined by 
the judicial duel The English Liberals denounced, in 
the strongest terms, this oppression of the colonists. 
Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton, described the 
appeal for murder as “that great pillar of the constitu- 
tion: ), “It. is. called;’ the:said, ‘Sa: remnant ‘of: barbarism 
and Gothicism. The whole of our constitution, for aught 
I know, is Gothic. Are you then to destroy every part 
of that Gothic constitution, and set up a J/acaroni one 
instead.” 

Burke said, “If there is an appeal for rape and robbery, 
you ought to have one for murder. . . . I allow that 
judicial combat was part of this appeal—which was super- 
stition and barbarism to the last degree. Yet I cannot 
consent that the subject should be dealt with piecemeal.” 
Wedderburn, in reply, said on behalf of the ministry: 
“They allow that the appeal for murder is only an effort 
for a private revenge, that it may lawfully be stopped at 
any time by the appellant on the receipt of a sum of 
money, and that if it proceeds the appellor or the accused, 
by throwing down his glove, is entitled to have his guilt or 
innocence determined by a deadly combat,” etc., etc. The 
clause objected to in the Bill was subsequently withdrawn 
by the ministry. The appeal for murder was attempted 
also previously (1699), in the case of Lord Cowper's brother, 
but was quashed on account of informality. Lord Holt 


1 Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors of England, vol. vi. p. 112. 


WAGER OF BATTLE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY. 173 


declared it “a noble badge of the liberties of an English- 
man.” ! 

, In 1818, in England, a probable murderer, acquitted 
~on a jury trial, was challenged by a brother of the girl 
murdered, when he pleaded “not guilty, and I am ready 
to defend the same by my body.” The Chief Justice 
sustained his right to this mode of trial, and but for the 
challenger’s withdrawing, the world would’ have seen a 
wager of battle in the nineteenth century before the Lord 
Chief Justice of England. 

In the next year, by Act 59 Geo. III, cap. 46,’ this 
relic of ante-Christian barbarism was abolished, and law 
finally substituted for force between individuals in Great 
Britain.2 The wager of battle or appeal of murder appears 
even to have been inherited in American legislation,* and 
Lea states that it probably exists legally in several of the 
United States. | 

The reflection of the reader will no doubt be of wonder 
that such a barbaric folly and abuse should have lasted 
so long under even the apparent reign of Christianity 
and right reason. But in all matters connected with the 
instincts of pugnacity and the fiercer passions, the teachings 
of Christ work very slowly. They are just beginning in 
the nineteenth century, their appropriate and lasting work. 
As we shall show later, their influence is only now felt on 
the relations of nations and the passions of war. The 


1 Campbell, vol iv. p. 275. 

2 All appeals of treason, murder, felony or other offences shall 
cease, determine and become void, and become entirely void, and be 
utterly abolished, and in any point of right, the tenant shall not be 
received to wage battel nor shall issue be joined nor trial be had by 
battel in any writ of right. (59 Geo. III. c. 46.) 

3 Lea, Campbell, Reeves, and others; the case of Ashford » 
Thornton. 

4 Stat. of S. Carol., vol. il. p. 715, note. 


174. GESTA, CHRIST/, 


wager of private battle is perhaps only a shade more un- 
reasonable and unchristian than public battle. Time has 
given a slow victory of this Faith in one ; it will yet bring 
about a like success in the other. ) 

Lhe Ordeal.—The Carlovingian Capitularies, which 
expressed the most intelligent legal judgments of the early 
Middle Ages, make this formal and solemn statement: 
“In doubtful cases our opinion should be reserved for 
the judgment of God. What men certainly know they 
reserve for their own, what they are ignorant of, for 
the Divine judgment; since he cannot be condemned by 
human examination, whom God hath reserved for His 
own judgment.”! . The “judgment of God” was the 
famous ordeal by fire, water, red-hot iron, the cross and 
the Eucharist. It was no doubt an early barbarian prac- 
tice, which survived after Europe had become civilized. 
Almost all nations have employed the ordeal in a primitive 
stage of their development. In various forms, it endured 
in some civilized countries till the last and the present 
century. 

The early history of the Church is consistent in its Oppo- 
sition to the practice. Christianity, as cultivating brotherly 
love and the spirit of justice, tended to weaken the power 
of this custom. As early as the sixth century, Avitus, the 
Archbishop of Vienne, remonstrated with Gundobald on 
account of admitting the ordeal in the Burgundian code ; 
and in the ninth century, St. Agobard, Archbishop of 
Lyons, in a famous treatise, attacked the whole system. 2 
Leo IV. in the middle of the ninth century condemned it 
in a letter to the English bishops, and many succeeding 


' In ambiguis, Dei judicio reservitur sententia. Quod certe agnos- 
cunt suo, quod nesciunt, divino reservunt judicio, etc. Cardov. Cap. 
lib, vii. c. 239, quoted by Lea. 

? St. Agobardi opera, previously cited, 


. 


OPPOSITION OF CHURCH. 175 


pontiffs opposed it. Great numbers, however, of the 
clergy defended the practice, and it received the approval 
of many syncds and councils. The ordeal, by the religious 
ceremonies accompanying it, was too powerful a help to 
the Church to be easily abandoned ; and bigotry and super- 
stition found in it a ready means of punishing heretics. 

The Popes, on the other hand, in the latter part of the 
twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth, con- 
| demned it in the strongest terms. Alexander III. with 
his whole apostolic authority forbade it.? The Fourth 
Council of Lateran (1215) prohibited the employment of 
any ecclesiastic ceremonies in such trials. In 1200 Philip 
Augustus, in bestowing certain privileges on the students 
of the University of Paris, made a condition that a citizen 
accused of assaulting a student shall not be allowed to 
defend himself by the duel or water ordeal.? In the third 
year of Henry III. of England,4 when so many reforms 
were begun, an order was issued to the justices not to try. 
persons charged with robbery, murder or similar crimes, by 
fire and water, but to keep them in prison under safe cus- 
tody, so as not to endanger them in life and limb, seeing 
that the judgment of fire and water is forbidden by the 
Church of Rome.’ The canons which especially are 
thought by Glanville and others to have abolished ordeal 
in England, are those forbidding man to tempt the Lord 
his God. 6 z 

Matthew of Westminster, in 1250, speaks of ordeal by 
fire and water as abolished; and Bracton does not allude 

eee 207. 

* Imo apostolica auctoritate prohibemus firmissime. Alex. JIL 
Ep., 74. (Quoted by Lea.) 

ee: 4 Reeves. 

> Spellinan, Gloss. 


®° Ch. xiv. Cum sit contra preceptum Domini, non tentabis Dominum 
Deum tuum. (Dec., part 2.) 


176 GESTA CHRISTI, 


to it as still practised. Throughout the same century it 
was gradually done away with in Italy, Iceland, Norway, 
and Sweden. In France it fell into disuse about the same 
time; but in Germany the superstition of the people 
resisted the mandates of the Church, and even in the 
fourteenth century the practice was not uncommon. In 
Spain, the celebrated code of Alfonso the Wise (1260) had 
expressly prohibited it; but even in 1322 a Church Council 
was obliged to threaten with excommunication all engaged 
in administering this test.! Lea, in his admirable work 
from which we have quoted So often, says that the well- 
known Muratori affirms his belief in the ordeal, and that it 
was common in Transylvania in the seventeenth century, 
and in the eighteenth century in West Prussia. 

The treatment of witches in the early history of the 
United States must have contained a large element of 
the belief in the supernatural “judgment of God.” Even 
in 1815 there was a trial for witchcraft in Belgium, and in 
1836 the population of Bela, near Dantzic, twice plunged 
an old woman accused of being a sorceress, into the sea, 
and, as she rose, she was pronounced guilty and beaten to 
death.? 

Other causes besides the influence of the Church or the 
spread of Christian ideas tended to remove this abuse— 
the revived influence of the Roman law, and the spirit of 
the mercantile communes and commercial leagues, who 
were more imbued with correct principles of evidence, less 
affected by superstition, and more inspired by religion. 
The early codes of commercial law make no reference to 
ordeal. ® 


) Du Cange, Ferrum candens. Lea. Muratori, Ital. Antig. 

2 5L50n, 

% J desire to make especial acknowledgments for the assistance | 
have derived in these chapters from Lea’s admirable work on Super- 
stition and force. 


ABOLITION: OF" OKDE AL, 177 


The abolition of ordealis not one of the most undisputed 
victories of the Christian religion. We can only say with 
confidence, that as this Faith imbues men with benevolence 
and the desire to render to all their due, the injustice, 
cruelty, and absurdity of such means of arriving at truth 
become more apparent. 


a 


CHAPTER XV. 
TORTURE, 


THE Roman law, in recognising one system of injustice, 
permitted of necessity the cruel and unjust proceedings 
legally connected with it. Slavery was assumed and ac- 
knowledged as legal, and with it, the torture to exact the 
truth from one who was in the view of the law scarcely a 
human being. Even the Stoical jurists allow torture to a 
slave who is a witness. But such an injustice once suffered 
to exist would be easily propagated to other classes. It 
was first applied to freemen suspected of crimes against 
the State or the emperor ; and, under the imperial legisla- 
tion of Rome, was employed against many offences of free- - 
born Romans. _ Still, under the Roman practice, there were 
many safeguards for the accused. The plaintiff was obliged 
to inscribe himself formally, and was exposed to the /er 
talionis, or reprisals, if he failed to prove his charge. 
Under Constantine, a person accused of treason, whatever 
his rank, was liable to torture, but accusers and informers, 
if they could not prove their charge, were equally liable | 
to this penalty. These provisions were preserved by 
Justinian.) Even freemen were tortured as witnesses, and 
so enlightened a ruler as Justinian could order a rod to 
persons suspected of false witness, in order to extract 
the truth. It is certainly one of the extraordinary per- 


1 13 Theod. Cod, ix. 8. 
178 


TORT ORE. 179 


versities of the human reason, that for so many centuries 
in Europe, alike under Roman law and the Christian 
Church, the innocent could be exposed to frightful pains 
in order to obtain evidence; and the accused, who might 
be innocent, were given up to fearful agonies to com- 
pel a confession, which might be the result of fear or 
pain. This savage procedure was unknown to the great. 
race related to the European races—the Hindoos—and 
was not a part of the code of the people who, through 
Christianity, have so much influenced modern progress 
the Jews. The northern barbarians, owing to their sense 
of individual independence, did not usually permit the 
torture of freemen, but only that of slaves ; and then under 
strict conditions. The wager of battle, the compurgators’ 
oath, and the ordeal took the place of torture, as a means 
of obtaining truth. The Gothic tribes, who were more 
influenced by Roman legislation, early adopted the prac- 
tice, though with many of the Roman protections for the 
accused. 

Christianity in its essential spirit was utterly opposed to 
such a cruel and unjust practice. One of the wisest kings 
of Europe expressed in his code the foundation principle 
of this Faith, when he said, “The person of man is the 
noblest thing on earth.”! Yet even Alfonso the Wise was 
obliged to admit torture in his legislation, though he modi- 
fied its effects by provisions which were afterwards imitated 
throughout Europe. No confession under torture was held 
technically valid ; the victim was sent back to prison ; he 
was again brought before the judges; if he persisted, he 
was condemned ; if he recanted, he was again tortured, and 
these steps were repeated ; the accused never being con- 
victed except by free confession.” Even after that, if the 


1 La persona del home es la mas noble cosa del mundo. Szefe 
Partidas. ie [eh 


180 GHSLA CHATS TZ, 


judges found reason to consider the confession an effect of 
fear or pain, he might be acquitted. 

The history of the early Church, when perhaps the 
teachings of Christ were fresher to the minds of men, is 
full of instances of opposition to this cruel practice. But 
gradually, as the study of the Roman law revived in the 
thirteenth century, and later, as the spirit of bigotry in- 
creased, torture, and all the dark accompanying practices 
were borrowed from the old code, and employed by the 
Roman Church in the processes of the Inquisition. Under 
this new spirit of persecution they became tenfold worse 
than they had ever been under Roman law. For centuries, 
the very light of justice passed away under the shadow of 
the Inquisition. Men were tortured on the feeblest sus- 
picions ; all the maxims of Roman equity were forgotten ; 
their confessions were allowed to implicate others, a 
often they charged themselves when innocent, to escape 
further pain. Agents were permitted to enter their prison- 
cells to worm out their confidence, and even judges falsely 
promised them mercy to win a confession. 

The following were some of the tortures habitually used 
in Europe for hundreds of years: “The stvappado, so 
common in Italy, and which is yet forbidden under Roman 
lawesne, . the vigils of Spain, which oblige a man to 
support himself by sheer muscular effort for seven hours, 
to avoid sitting on a pointed iron which pierces him with 
an insufferable pain ; iron stools heated to redness on which 
we place poor half-witted women accused of witchcraft, ex- 
hausted by frightful imprisonment, rolling from their dark 
and filthy dungeons, loaded with chains, fleshless and half. 
dead, and we pretend that the human frame can resist 
these devilish practices, and that tHe confessions which our 
wretched victims make, are true.” ! 


* Nicholas, Dess. Morale et jurid. sur la Torture. (Quoted by Lea). 


THE STRAPPADO. 181 


The strapfpado, to which allusion is here made, was a 
species of torture used to extract the truth from witnesses 
oer accused persons. The hands were tied behind the 
back, with a piece of iron between them; a cord was 
fastened to the wrists by which, with a pulley, the 
unfortunate person was hoisted from the ground with a 
weight of 125 lbs. fastened to his feet. In extraordinary 
cases the weight was increased to 250 lbs. When the 
victim was raised to a sufficient height, he was dropped 
with a jerk which dislocated the joints, and this was 
repeated three times. The most agonising and efficacious 
of all torture was considered to be enforced sleeplessness. 
The person was placed between two jailors, who slept in 
alternate periods, but kept the unhappy victim awake for 
several days and nights. 

In applying torture to those suspected of witchcraft, 
one judge (according to Nicholas) boasted of despatching 
nine hundred victims in his district in fifteen years; and 
another in the diocese of Como burnt one thousand persons 
in a year. The cruelty and arbitrary character of the 
system of torture reached such a degree in Europe, that 
intelligent persons decided, if chance should expose them 
to any suspicion, they would at once admit every charge, 
preferring a speedy death to these long-continued agonies. 

Under the German Code after the sixteenth century, 
the rule of the Roman law was followed, of beginning 
with the weakest in torture. If husband and wife were to 
be tortured, they commenced with the wife. Von Rosbach 
warns the tribunals that their greatest fault was in looking 
only at the testimony adverse to the accused, and that 
they “used torture as though nature had created the feel- 
ings of prisoners to be lacerated at will.”? 

As soon as a charge was made, the judges began by 


1 Quoted by Lea. 


182 GESTA CHRISTI 


torturing all who were suspected, without waiting to ascer- 
tain if any crime had really been committed. The accused 
generally did not see a copy of the accusation; often was 
not allowed to be heard in defence, and was tortured at 
once after the adverse evidence was heard. Even the right 
of appeal was evaded, by the judges sending the accused 
to the rack without a preliminary formal order. The rule 
prevailed that torture should not. be so prolonged as to 
endanger life and limb, but, in fact, the unfortunate victim 
was often crippled for life under a false accusation. Von 
Boden says, that the devil himself could not invent any 
worse torment for the human body than these judges 
often used on the innocent! The judge himself was obliged 
to be present during the torture, and naturally grew callous 
to the misery he inflicted. He was liable to indictment 
if the prisoner did not confess, so that every motive urged 
him to torment the miserable sufferers. It is said that in 
these refinements of cruelty over nine hundred different 
instruments for inflicting pain were invented and used. 
Torture was permitted even after conviction, to prevent 
appeals ; and if the unhappy person asserted his innocence © 
at the place of execution, he was hurried back to the rack 
again. | 

One candid magistrate of Milan is reported by Nicholas 
to have tested the system, by killing a favourite mule and 
allowing the accusation fo fall upon a servant. The man 
denied the offence, was put to the rack, and confessed ; and 
subsequently, after the torture, persisted in the confession. 
The judge, it is said, resigned his office and became a 
cardinal. , 

In France, at the close of the fifteenth century, all the 


* Sic adhiberi soleant ut diabolum ipsum asperius quid quo cerpori 
humano in hac vita noceat, excogitare posse dubium sit. (Quoted by 
Lea. 


TORTURE. 133 


worst accompaniments of this cruel practice were in con- 
tinual use ; the secret investigation of criminal cases; the 
separate and secret examination of witnesses ; the prisoner 
not being informed of the accusation against him, nor 
allowed an opportunity of preparing a defence. The prin- 
ciple of French legislation in this matter in the sixteenth 
century being, as Lea well puts it, that it were better that 
one hundred innocent persons should suffer, than that one 
euilty one should escape. 

The old maxim of Roman law, that no one who had 
confessed his guilt should be examined as to the guilt of 
another accused, was forgotten, and the new method was 
the application of the rack to compel a confession as to the 
Suilt of others. This continued even under the reign of 
Louis XIV. Silence under the agony inflicted was not 
considered evidence of innocence ; so that a man not found 
guilty after torture, could be punished: for some other of- 
fence of which he had not been convicted. This horrible 
condition of legislation endured in France till the eighteenth 
century. ! 

In Spain, as might have been expected, this barbarous 
practice and all the abuses of secret inquest had their 
especial seat. The dreadful procedure of the Inquisition 
was transferred to secular legislation. Torture was adopted. 
even on charges of theft or counterfeiting, and for all. 
weighty offences. Evidence sufficient to justify it was con- 
sidered to lie in common report, or in unexplained absence 
before accusation, or in prevarication at examination, or 
even in silence and pallor! The magistrates went so far 
as to employ the lot or divination to obtain proofs suf- 
cient to justify to their minds the rack or the strappado. 
Witnesses were not spared either in civil or criminal cases. 


1 Deinde a pallore et similibus oritur judicium ad torturam secun- 
dum. (Von Rosbach.) Lea, p. 358. 


184 GCESTAGGHRLS Ls 


In general, torture was seldom practised in their early 
history by the nations where jury trial prevailed and 
evidence was open, and where Roman law had little or no 
influence. In the Danish and Swedish Codes, from the 
fifteenth to the end of the sixteenth centuries, when this 
cruel process was so common in Europe, it is not men- 
tioned. It does however appear very early in the Icelandic 
Code, but seems afterwards to have fallen into disuse. 

Lorture in England.—It is the boast of the common law 
of England, that this practice was never recognised in its 
provisions. Among the Anglo-Saxons, the ordeal, the 
wager of battle, and the gradual growth of the jury took 
its place. 

By the laws of Henry I. it is laid down that no credit 
is to be given to a confession about another's cuilt, and 
that a confession extorted by fear or fraud is invalid. It 
is thought that the expression in Magna Charta, “No 
freeman may be arrested or imprisoned except by legal 
judgment of his peers,” ® may refer to this power of magis- 
trates and kings, so freely exercised on the Continent at 
that time. 

In the fourteenth century, this cruelty was almost 
unknown in legal proceedings in England... The Arch- 
bishop of York states this publicly, and asks in a letter, 
which has been preserved, what he shall do in regard to 
the examination of certain knights templar. 

Yet torture was occasionally employed during suc- 
ceeding reigns, and gradually, as the royal prerogative was 
strengthened, it gained ground. Under Henry VIII. it was 
held that a royal warrant justified the use of this means 
of investigation and of secret inquest. Arguments were 


* Nemini de se confesso super alienum crimen, credatur ; confessio 
per metum vel per fraudem extorta, non valet.” (ZL. Hen. L, 5, 10.) 
2 
CARXX. 


TORTURE IN ENGLAND. 185 


made against its practice during Elizabeth’s reign, but still 
it was held that the royal command rendered it legal. Sir 
Thomas Smith says of torture in his time (1570): “ Like- 
wise torment of question which is used by the order of 
the civil law and custom of other countries, to put a 
malefactor to excessive paine, to make him confesse of 
himselfe, or of his fellows or complices, is not used in Eng- 
land ; it is taken for servile. . . The nature of English- 
men is to neglect death, but to abide no torment. . . 
Likewise confession by torment is esteemed for nothing.” } 
Even. Lord Bacon, at as late a period as 1619, recom- 
mended its use to King James. As was the experience 
in other countries, this method of examination was trans- 
ferred from cases of treason and of offences against the 
State, to ordinary offences—even to the examination of 
persons accused of theft and horse-stealing. 

After 1640, pain as a means of investigation was never 
applied to those accused of political offences. The Rebel- 
lion put an end to such practices. 

In Scotland the use of torture began somewhat late, 
after the fifteenth century, but it was applied fearfully, 
especially in the trials for witchcraft in the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries. It was not abolished in that coun- 
try till after the Union, in 1709.? 

The Opposition of the Church.—As we stated before, the 
Church in its early history was consistent with its doctrines 
in opposing this cruelty and injustice. Under the Mero- 
vingian line, torture was only exceptionally employed, 
except against scorcerers. A Church Council in 587 A.D. 
forbade by special decree every elder or deacon from being 


1 Commonwealth of England 1589, p. 100. See also Jardine Ox Use 
of Torture, etc. 
3, Led. 


186 GESTA CHRISTI 


present at the infliction of this pain.’ Another canon 
(585 A.D.) prohibited any of the clergy from even behold- 
ine these agonies.* A prominent Bishop, Hildebert, in 
1128, in a letter to his clergy, says, “To torment criminals, 
or to extort confession by torture, is not a part of the 
discipline of the Church.”’ The early Popes were not be- 
hindhand in their denunciation of the practice. Gregory I. 
in the sixth century speaks with contempt of a confes- 
sion where the innocent are compelled to avow them- 
selves guilty. Nicholas I. in his Epistle to the Bulga- 
rians, says that this is a process which no divine or human 
law can approve of, “for a confession ought not to be 
unwilling but spontaneous.”® “ Abandon all such prac- 
tices,” is his command. Ivo of Chartres, in the beginning 
of the twelfth century, proclaimed that the confession of 
the clergy, whatever they were accused of, should always 
be spontaneous, not forced. ® 

Fifty years later, Gratian proclaims that confessions 
must not be obtained by torments. 7 

This cruel practice was not adopted by most of the coun- 
tries of Europe till the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 


1 Non licet presbytero nec diacono ad trepalium ubi rei torquentur 
stare. Conc. Autiss., con. 33- 

2 Ad locum examinationis reorum nullus clericorum accedat. Cove. 
DAE NA ay L222.) ie 

2 Reos tormentis afficere vel suppliciis extorquere confessionem 
set » est tion ecclesize tisciplina.W(//2/d,. Eps xxx ea: 

4, . . noxios se fateri cogantur etiam innoxii. Greg., lib. viii. 
TG ely #3 oC: 

6 Quam rem nec divina lex nec humana prorsus admittit, cum non 
invita sed spontanea debet esse confessio. (Ep. 97, 86.) . . Relin- 
quite itaque talia. (Quoted by Lea.) 

6 Ministrorum confessio non sit extorta sed spontanea. (Quoted by 
Lea ) 

7 Confessio cruciatibus extorquenda non est. Dec. crus, xv. 6, I. 
(Seetea.) = 


THE CHURCH AND TORTURE. 187 


/ 


Italy, which was the centre of Roman ideas, was the 
earliest to employ it in obtaining evidence, and the last 
to abandon it. Frederick II. in his Neapolitan Code 
(1231) is said to have substituted torture for ordeal in judi- 
cial trials. In the thirteenth century the Church began to 
drift far from the principles of its Master, and to be imbued 
with a spirit of cruel bigotry. The Inquisition accepted 
torture and secret investigation as its appropriate imple- 
ments; and Pope Innocent IV. ordered this process in the 
examinations for heresy. The influence of the Inquisition 
on secular law was widespread and most disastrous. 

Two causes began now to spread abroad this cruel pro- 
ceeding: one, the revived study of Roman law, and the 
consequent desire by the Royalist party through Europe to 
restore to imperial and kingly power its privileges—among 
them the right to obtain evidence by inflicting pain—and 
the other this terrible anti-christian spirit of the Church 
and the Inquisition. . 

The spirit of humanity taught by Christ, wherever it 
could struggle against ecclesiastical tyranny, opposed this 
barbarity through every century. As the Scriptures be- 
came more circulated among the common people after the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, all men felt more of the 
compassion taught by ‘Him, and this abuse seemed more 
and more a shame to the faith they professed. The in- 
Auence of the Roman law indeed upheld it, and the bigotry 
of priests and cruelty of rulers, but the Teacher of love 
everywhere through the Gospels preached against it in the 
hearts of men. Nothing but His influence seems finally to 
have uprooted it among European nations. 

The authors from whom we have quoted, A. Nicholas 
Von Boden, Bernhardi, are filled with the Christian spirit, 
and strike telling blows at the evil. The latter writer states 
that the abuse was abolished in Holland, because in Utrecht, 


188 GELS TAUCARTS T 2: 


a man brought a false charge of theft against a shoe- 
maker.! The workman was tortured, confessed, and was 
finally executed. It subsequently appeared that the ac- 
cusation arose from the shoemaker’s refusal to buy a pair 
of shoes from the man. Such instances were no doubt 
constantly occurring and aiding to bring Europe to right 
reason. This author says, that the system of torture ought 
to be cast out of the doors of Christianity, and that it is 
destitute of any appearance even of a divine test of truth. 

It is but just to say that in these matters of humanity 
and public right, the sceptics were often in their practice 
nearer Christ than were the popes, bishops and clergy. 
The Christian spirit affected the ideas of those who were 
nominally unbelievers. The French free-thinkers and 
their followers opposed the use of torture with all their 
eloquence. Montaigne uttered his condemnation of it, 
Voltaire addressed (in 1777) an earnest appeal to Louis 
XVI. against it, and the philosopher king, Frederick the 
Great, made it the first act of his reign to abolish it (1740), 
though his humanity was not sufficient to prevent his 
using it on those accused of treason and rebellion against. 
himself. 

In Saxony, Switzerland, and Austria, it was abolished 
towards the end of the eighteenth century ; in Russia it 
survived till 1801 ; in Wurtemburg and Bavaria it was in 
use in 1806 and 1807; in Hannover till 1822; and in 
Baden till 1831, In France, the storm of the Revolution 
swept it away; and almost at the same time it came to 
an end in North Italy, but was used in the prisons of 
Naples and Palermo down to the middle of this century. 

It is remarkable that, according to Lea,® instances of 


1 Quoted by Lea. 
2 A heading on the use of Torture, etc. D. Jardine, London, 1837. 
br Pagers 22. 


ABOLITION OF TORTUKE. 189 


judicial torture to extort evidence have occurred in 
Europe within a few years: one in Roumania in 1868, 
and the other in the enlightened Republic of Switzerland, 
in the Canton of Zug, in 18609. 

The civilized world has happily for ever passed beyond 
this great abuse and injustice, which has caused such 
untold pain and misery, and has broken the courage and 
endurance of such countless numbers of human beings. ~ 
Unfortunately for the name of Christianity, the Church 
sustained and employed this diabolical system of cruelty 
and oppression. But the teachings of Christ, and the 
protests of many of His followers have opposed it in every 
age. As men have become more and more filled with His 
spirit, or indirectly influenced by Christian ideas, torture 
has disappeared, and is now as one of the horrible spectres 
of a dismal and bloody past. In non-Christian countries, 
however, it exists, but is gradually abolished as their codes 
of law come under the influence of the doctrines of Jesus. 
In one of the most civilized of these—Japan—it was form- 
ally abolished as a means of procuring evidence,’ in 1873, 
the new code being reformed after those of Christian 
countries. 


1 Reed’s Japan. vol. i. D- 324. 


GCHAPRITER SX Vi. 
THE STRANGER S, RIGHT. 


UNDER the old Greek and Roman habits of mind, the 
stranger was mainly looked. upon as a barbarian and 
enemy." Something of the same savagery, which in 
Stanley's travels through Central Africa made almost 
every new tribe he met with at once attack him like a 
dangerous wild beast, animated the ancient races, both 
barbarous and civilized, in their relations to foreigners, 
Stoicism indeed cultivated a more humane feeling among 
the learned and refined ; but the masses of the people: in 
the ancient world were full of prejudices and hostility 
against those not of their own race or country. It is true 
that the Roman empire, with its imperial unity, tended 
to melt different peoples together under one rule, and 
strangers and enemies gradually became only those outside 
of the limits of this grand domain. Toward those, how- 
ever, the old barbaric feeling and custom were strong as 
ever. That expression in Plautus, “A man is a wolf to a 
man he does not know,”? is probably an echo of an old 
Koman proverb, and utters a common sentiment of the 


* Hostis enim apud majores nostros is dicebatur quem nunc pere- 
grinum dicimus. (C7c.) Aristotle says, Of all wars those are most 
necessary and just which are made by men against wild beasts, and 
next those made by Greeks against strangers, ‘who are naturally 
our enemies.” (Po/., li. 8.) 

* As., 2, 4, 88. Homo homini ignoto lupus, ete. 

190 


a 


HUMANITY TO THE STRANGER. Ig! 


Italian peoples. When the Empire broke up and the 
Teutonic codes to a large degree controlled Europe, we see 
the revival of the inhuman spirit towards strangers, and at 
the same time the larger humanity taught by the Jewish 
Scriptures and by Christ, struggling with and mitigating 
the spirit of old and savage legislation. 

That humane command of the Old Testament, “Thou 
shalt not vex the stranger” (Lev. xix. 33, 34), seems to 
have rung in the ears of almost every Christian legislator 


> of the German, Keltic, and Anglo-Saxon tribes; and the 


spirit of the new Revelation is seen everywhere in- 
spiring and teaching a broader humanity, though often 
in vain against the ingrained and inherited habits of bar- 
barism. , 

There were indeed certain justifications of the old 
Teutonic dislike of strangers. The land of the tribe was 
held in common, and a stranger, as a lawless man, was out 
of connection with the community, with no possessions and 
no obligations ; he was no doubt often a runaway, vagrant, 
or thief, or a disturber of the peace; if he came as a 
merchant he was outside of the “mutual pledge” system 
which bound, for instance, the Anglo-Saxons to good 
conduct. It followed almost naturally that the laws in 
regard to him were often very strict or cruel. According 
to the Burgundian law! he could be tortured under sus- 
picious circumstances, and even one of Charlemagne’s 
capitularies permits the same treatment. By a law of the 
Salian Franks, when a stranger wished to settle in a village 
or canton he was not permitted the privilege if a single 
resident opposed. If also within ten days any member of 
the tribe presented himself with witnesses, and summoned 


1 Quicumque hominem extraneum cujuslibet nationis ad se veni- 
entem susceperit, discutiendum praesentet ut cujus sit tormentis 
adhibitis fateatur. Lex. Burg., i. 39, and Cap. 2 (803 A.D.). 


192 GESTAY CHRIS LL 


him to quit the village, and this was repeated twice after 
the ten days, he was obliged to depart. If he refused, he 
was summoned to the mad/um, and not only expelled, but 
compelled to abandon his property and pay a fine. In 
England, as we shall shortly show, a stranger who was 
accused of any crime must be at once put in jail; if he 
was found off from the four main roads and making no 
noise of bell, he could be killed as a thief; no one could 
harbour him more than three nights, and whoever did so 
even for that time was responsible for his good conduct. 
He was taxed wherever possible. Even as late as the time 
of Henry VIII. all foreign artificers were prohibited from 
working in the kingdom.) The Saxons are said to have 
sold into slavery a stranger who had no patron. By a law 
of many German ‘tribes, if a stranger had resided twelve 
months in a district he was safe; if he was guest of 
a member of the tribe, the host after three nights became 
responsible for him. The proverb was common, “Two 
nights a guest, the third: night a servant?’ )) In) Gagh 
among the Keltic tribes, the stranger was equally held 
as one outside of the community and unable to own the 
property of a warrior. The early German codes soon 
begin to show the effect of the new spirit in this matter. 
The laws of the Bavarians of the twelfth century quote 
the Bible text in regard to vexing the stranger, and lay 
a heavy fine on him who shall plunder, sell, or wound a 
stranger, while a burdensome fine must be paid to the 
treasury for his murder. 

That great legislator, Charlemagne, in 803, calls upon 
every one in his empire, as he would that Christ should be 
merciful unto him, not to refuse hospitality to strangers 


pict Veal IMD bag eb tay 
* Peregrinum qui patronem non habebant, vendebant Saxonis. 
Weginhordt. 


DROIT D/AUBAINE. 193 


and travellers! He directs all judges to give Just judg- 
ment, and to make no distinction between the stranger 
and the citizen, because that is the true judgment of God.’ 
No official is permitted to oppress strangers with taxes 
or any other burden.® 
Alfred, in the Anglo-Saxon code, orders his subjects not 
to vex the stranger and far-comer, in memory of the Lord’s 
people being strangers in the land of Egypt; and each of 
his successors repeats this injunction on religious grounds. 
The ancient Hungarian law enjoins humanity towards” 
strangers in that we ever have the example of the Master, 
and the command “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” * 
Drott @ Aubaine.—One of the most remarkable instances 
of the continuance of a barbaric custom in a Christian 
country, down to modern times, has been the drozt @au- 
baine,> or stranger’s right, in France. The stranger for 
centuries in France was looked upon in law as a serf, and 
treated accordingly. An auJain, or stranger, living a year 
and a day in a French community, and not professing 
citizenship or attaching himself to a baron, became serf 
to the seigneur on whose lands he resided. It was the 
fourteenth century before the strangers ceased to be 
regarded as bound to the soil in France, and features of 
the droit d’aubaine have survived to the present day. The 
1 Volumus ut infra regna, Christo propitio nostro, omnibus iteran- 
tibus, nullus hospitium denegat, mansionem et focum tantum. Czar. 
3 Cap., and others. 


2 Quod justum est, judicate. Sive civis sit ille, sive peregrinus 
nulla sit distantia personarum, quia Dei judicium. (62.) 

° 72,9 ©. 

4 Semper illud Domini exemplum, etc. 

5 Probably derived from Albanus, or Scotchman, as being the foreign 
people most often strangers in France. It may also be from a/zbz 
natus. Others give, Celt. ad/, autre; dann, juridiction, district, 
contrée, pays. (See Hzst. de la Cond. civ. a’ Ltrangers en France. 
Par C. Demangeat, Paris, 1844.) 


194, | GESTA CHRISTI. 


oppressive custom had indced been lightened by the greed 
of the seigneurs for money obtained by selling their rights 
over foreigners, and by the power of the kings, who pro- 
tected strangers in the interest of royalty against feudal 
barons. The Christian religion, too, softened, though for 
centuries it could not remove, the oppression. The abso- 
lute servitude of strangers was formally abolished from 
the thirteenth to the fourteenth century. In the earlier 
times the seigneur at the death of the stranger took, 
“by law, all his inheritance. But toward the end of the 
thirteenth century, if he had left children, half the pro- 
perty was permitted to descend to them. Louis X. (1315) 
ordered servitude to be changed to freedom! but the efforts 
failed against the struggles of the feudal gentry. 

The aubains, or strangers, of the Middle Ages seem to 
have been in almost the same position with serfs, They 
were bound to the soil, and masters could pursue them if 
they ran away; they sold their rights over them like any 
other property. The stranger was obliged to pay dues 
to the baron; if married to a person of another class, 
he must pay a fine, and, if his marriage was without the 
consent of his master or seigneur his goods could be confis- 
cated and the marriage declared null and void. In divers 
ways the unfortunate foreigners in France were plundered 
and taxed throughout the Middle Ages. They could not 
inherit or bequeath property. Even as late as the six- 
teenth century the aubains could not transmit property, 
except a fixed small sum, or succeed to an estate. In 
1461, Louis XI. exempted from the drozt a’aubaine and 
the correlated right of barbarism, the droit de naufrage— 
wreckers’ right—certain large districts in Flanders and the 
adjacent regions. It was not till 1606 that England and 
France released merchants by treaty from these oppressive 

) Servitude fust ramenée A franchise. 


ABOLITION OF DROIT DAUBAINE. 195 


dues and exactions. Henry II.,in 1554, expressly exempted 
Scotch merchants from the drott d’aubaine. Still with 
these various exemptions, the general law for centuries in 
France was that a stranger, if he did not recognise the 
seigneur on whose land he lived, could, after a year and 
a day, be arrested and his goods confiscated, or he be 
forced to pay a heavy fine. He became the man of the 
baron and must bestow on him a certain sum by will, or 
the baron inherited all his property. Even native French- 
men wandering to some other than their native district’ 
were liable to become native audazis. 

This odious right was finally abolished by the humane 
impulse of the Revolution in 1790 ; that 1s, strangers could 
transmit property to other than French children, but they 
were not permitted to collect property left to them in 
France, nor were they made equal with Frenchmen in 
regard to impriscnment for debt, the transference of pro- 
perty, or the ability to appear as plaintiffs in court. 

It was not till this century (1819) that strangers in 
France were placed by other than treaty law on an equality 
with native Frenchmen, and allowed to receive bequests 
and to own real estate. In 1832 a still further improve- 
ment was made in their condition by their being delivered 
from imprisonment for small debts. 

As regards foreign countries, these odious relics of a 
barbarous age were abolished by treaty in France, first 
in 1760 ;-—the privilege of exemption being secured by the 
United States in 1778, and by Russia and England in 
1787. 

Similar inequalities in regard to strangers, derived from 
the ancient customs of half-civilized tribes and from 
feudalism, still exist under the common law of England, 
and have been continued in many of the United States. 
The right of a stranger to own real estate in most of the 


196 GCLSLAY CARs, 


American States is only given by special statute or on 
application to the court. 

The struggle of Christianity against this spirit of in- 
tolerance is only seen in the early legislation of the 
German and Keltic tribes, because then the motive power 
_ was fresher and more distinctly expressed. But when 
Paul on Mars’ Hill uttered to the race most proud of its 
blood in antiquity and who held all foreigners as_bar- 
barians, that watch-word of modern humanity, “God hath 
made of one all races of men,” and when He repeated it 
in so many forms to the great conquering race of the past 
—the Romans—we may be sure that an idea from the 
great Master was thrown into human society which must 
everywhere break down the hatred of race to race. 

As this humane principle became more an element in 
human progress, it was less spoken of as a religious in- 
fluence. , It entered into legislation silently, and after long: 
struggles began the reforms which are not yet finished; for 
under the teachings of Christianity, there can be no unjust 
and oppressive discriminations made against the ‘stranger 
and foreigner, but all nations are of “ one blood,” 


GEA PURI XV LI 
THE WRECKERS’ RIGHT AND PIRACY. 


OF all persons claiming the offices of common humanity, 
it would seem that the unfortunate sailor or stranger, 
wrecked on a foreign shore, was the one most innocent and 
most deserving. And yet in all ages before Christianity, 
and often since, either the shipwrecked mariner and 
traveller were held to be the slaves or captives of those 
who rescued them, or their property became lawful plunder 
of any into whose hands it fell. They were considered 
the outlaws of mankind. 

The Visigoths, more than any of the German tribes, 
were at least externally influenced by the Christian 
principle, and their code showed one of the first efforts to 
do away with this barbaric practice towards the ship- 
wrecked. Severe penalties were threatened against plun- 
dering the goods of wrecked vessels. The Anglo-Saxons 
too were somewhat touched with the higher humanity of 
the new Faith, and one law proclaims (about 978 A.D.) 
“Tet every merchant-ship have frith (peace) that comes 
within port, though it be a hostile port, if it be not (storm-) 
driven! If it be (storm-) driven, and it flee to any peace- 
burgh, then let these men and what they bring with them 
have peace.” 

Henry I. (1130 A.D.) referring to the wreckers’ right, 
says: “Hanc abhorrens consuetudinem,” abhorring this 

197 


198 "GESTA CARISTY!, 


custom, he ordains a law, that whoever escapes from a 
wreck should be allowed to possess his property. 

Richard II. (1190) proclaims that, having himself ex- 
perienced the calamities of shipwreck, he does “for the 
love of God and the salvation of his soul demand safety 
and protection for all shipwrecked persons and their goods 
in whatever land or sea.”} 

The ancient mercantile community was the first to 
feel the new spirit of humanity, and their interests would 
naturally move them to resist barbaric practices. Every 
old mercantile code contains* provisions against the ill- 
treatment of these unfortunate persons. The Code d’Oleron 
(dating before the fourteenth century) is full of honest in- 
dignation against those who injure the shipwrecked, and 
commands the plunderers to be half-drowned and stoned 
like dogs, 

It is said to be “against the command of God the 
All-powerful, notwithstanding any custom or ordinance, 
to plunder the shipwrecked, and all such are accursed” 
(Art. 38) ; and whoever should put up false lights to mis- 
lead the unwary and thus cause disaster and wreck, ought. 
to be bound in the midst of his house and fire to be set 
to its four corners and be burned with it, and the whole 
place be turned into a hog-yard.2 Nothing however 
seemed to uproot this barbarous practice. In the tenth 
and eleventh centuries the Dukes of Brabant sfill claimed 
the right to plunder all persons who were so unfortunate 


‘ Ricardus Rex jam expertus calamitates naufragorum, pro amore 
Dei et salute anime sue et parentum suorum quietem clamavit in 
perpetuum Wec per totam terram suam citra mare, et ultra statuens ; 
quod omnis naufragus qui ad terram pervenerit, omnes res suas liberas 
et quietas habeat. Leg. Sax., Wilkins, p. 342. 

Et doibt estre lié a une esteppe en millieu de sa maison, et on doibt 
mettre le feu es quatres corniéres de sa maison et faire tout brusler, 
CCC. Pie ed ce os 


CRUELTY £O SHIPWRECKED. 19) 


as to be cast on their coasts. The Council of Nantes 
(1127) thundered against it ; and in 1231, the good king, 
St. Louis, made a treaty with the Duke of Brabant, 
endeavouring to convert these rights into money pay- 
ments. 

Among the religious efforts made to limit this odious 
custom of a cruel age, may be mentioned, the “ Judgments 
of the Sea,” a code of St. Louis, in 1266. By these new 
regulations, the seigneur on whose domains unfortunate 
vessels were cast, was not permitted to seize the property 
or to enslave the persons of the crew ; but he is required 
to aid the sufferers and to save the property. “Whoever 
shall do the contrary, shall be excommunicated from the 
church, and punished as a robber” (Art. 29), and by Art. 
30, if, after a year, no owner appear, the baron shall pub- 
licly sell the wrecked property, and distribute the money 
among the poor, and otherwise do works of compassion 
with the proceeds. 

The Lateran Council (1179) promulgated one article 
against the inhuman practice, and forbade any one de- 
spoiling the wrecked. * 

These efforts however did not avail, for in 1277 Philip 
the Bold was obliged to issue an ordinance, excepting 
from the usual royal claims the property of Italian 
merchants thus brought to misfortune. 

Louis XI. (1465-69) claimed all shipwrecked goods as 
legal property of the crown ; the only exceptions being in 
favour of the “Dutch and Flemings, and of the Hanseatic 
League. The ordinance of 1543 is said to be the first 
legal evidence of a reform in this practice in France ; by 


1 Ne patientes naufragium quisquam spoliare preesumat. (C. 21.) 
Excommunicatione quoque poenee subdantur qui Romanos aut alios 
Christianos pro negotio vel aliis causis honestis navigio vectos, aut 
capere aut rebus suis preesumunt. (3 Conc. Lat.) 


200 GESTA LCA RTS Ti, 


this act, the wrecked persons were permitted to reclaim 
their property within a year and a day.! 

In other portions of Europe. there was much humane 
legislation against this evil. In Spain, Sicily, and Italy, 
the commercial cities and Republics strove everywhere to 
include humane treatment towards the wrecked in the privi- 
leges granted to them by treaties. The religious bodies 
universally denounced the practice of cruelty towards these 
unfortunate persons. It existed on the coasts of Scotland 
till the thirteenth century ; and in Germany. it was only in 
the twelfth century that the right of the baron or the crown 
over wrecked property was changed to a fine for protec- 
tion. On the coasts of Prussia the ancient right of plun- 
dering and enslaving the shipwrecked was believed to be 
derived from the old Rhodian Law. 

Many treaties were made in the thirteenth century 
between Christian and Mohammedan countries, endeavour- 
ing to protect Europeans from this cruel practice. The 
final abolition of this inhuman custom was due to a com- 
bination of influences, The sense of humanity taught 
and encouraged by the new Faith was also stimulated by 
the broadening effects of commerce, and by the mutual 
interests of traders and their customers. 

The only nations among whom this barbarism still en- 
dures in modern times, are the non-Christian, especially 
the Mohammedan peoples of the north of Africa. But 
even here, the power of civilized races has checked it; 
and humanity to the shipwrecked is now stamped by the | 
Christian Faith on the public law and custom of all lead- 
ing nations. It would not only be considered in this age 
a violation of international law to plunder or treat cruelly 
the shipwrecked, but the religious and humane spirit of 


1 Pardessus. Collection de Lots Maritimes. 


PIRAGY: 201 


Christian countries has made it a duty and satisfaction to 
aid these unfortunate persons. 

Piracy.—The practice of indiscriminate plundering on 
the sea in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, was only a 
part of the private war prevailing on the land. Every in- 
dividual, or town, or state who chose, could equip a vessel 
and plunder all others. No richly freighted ship was safe. 
Entire coasts became asylums for marine. freebooters. 
Towns employed vessels against other towns ; and cities 
thus waged war with one another. 

The leagues of commercial towns did much to clear the 
seas of these free-booters, and piracy was finally checked 
by privateering. The evil (in a mitigated form) has lasted 
down to our own day in the practice of “Private War” 
under letters of marque, or privateering. | 

The new spirit infused into international law by the 
great Teacher is gradually abolishing privateering, and this 
century will probably see the end of “ Private War” on the 
sea, as a former century saw that of a similar savage 
custom on land. | 


GHAPTERLXVITT 


CHARLEMAGNE’S CAPITULARIES. 


No student of the Middle Ages can be otherwise than 
deeply impressed with the wonderful personality which 
led the work of reforming and re-organizing that portion 
of Europe held by the German and Keltic tribes. Charle- 
magne’s legislation bears the constant impress of the new 
moral power in the world ; and though his practical action 
was by no means always guided by Christianity, these laws 
often give a fair example of the influence of the religion of 
Jesus on the laws of barbaric tribes. 

One of his capitularies (789 A.D.) uses almost the lan- 
guage of the Bible, when he says, ‘‘ Let no one claim 
wrongfully the lands of another, and pass not the bound- 
aries of his fathers.” “No one should turn away the 
offerings which may be the whole patrimony of the poor!” 
“Let peace and good intelligence rule among bishops, 
abbots, counts, judges, and men of all conditions, for with- 
out peace, nothing pleases the Lord.” “If ye love one 
another, all will know ye are Christ’s disciples!” Accord- 
ing to the command of our Lord, let no murder be com- 
mitted in the spirit of vengeance, avarice, and rapine ; 
wherever this crime be discovered, let our judges punish 
it in virtue of our orders, but let no one in future lose his 
life if the law do not condemn him.| Widows and orphans 

l Cape Leccles. Ol, 00, etc 


202 


LAWS OF CHARLEMAGNE. 203 


and minors are to be protected, as under the peculiar care 
of God, and are everywhere to have peace and receive 
justice.” ! “And it pleases us that the faithful should be 
admonished concerning hatred and discord, which extin- 
cuish charity among those nearest, and destroy affection.” * 
The true charity which loveth God and our neighbour is 
to be cultivated ;* and friendship and affection are to be 
observed according to the words of the Apostle to the 
Corinthians.t The people were exhorted to peace and 
concord, because they have one Father in heaven,’ and 
because the blessed book had taught them that “ Blessed 
are the peace-makers.” They are warned against feud,° 
and in the words of Scripture against any rash shedding 
of Christian blood.’ The powerful are cautioned against 
the oppression of the poor ;® and all are exhorted to be 
imitators of Him who would save the souls of men.? And 
all Christians are most solemnly warned to give their 
utmost diligence, lest they be for ever separated from the 
kingdom of God, by their strifes and contentions and 
falsehood and wicked vices.!” 

The great sin of the Middle Ages was the habit of false 
swearing. These laws bid the citizen beware of perjury, 
not only on the holy Gospels, the relics of the saints and 
the altar, but in common conversation. ‘There are some 


1Ut viduez, orphani et minus potentes sub Dei defensione, etc. 
(Cc. CCXxvii.) 

2 Placuit ut fideles admonentur de odio et discordia, etc. (c. cclxi.) 

® Vera caritas qua Deus proximusque diligitur, ete. (cccexlvii.) 

Bc CCCxIil, 

5 Quia unum Deum patrem habemus in ccelo, etc. (Lib. 7.) 

Siro Paidaetc. (leibs'5,'c. ccv.) 

MerCecKx YU. 

Poe COCIXX Xi» 

See CCCAXKIL: 

eee) aresno Dei séealitenos faciant. (4¢d./2,. cxxii,) 


204 GESTA CHRISTI. 


who swear by charity and truth, and know not that the 
same God is charity and truth ””!; they urge honest weights 
and measures in towns and monasteries, for “my soul 
hateth false measures.” ” | 

On the question of marriage, no one is permitted to 
marry a divorced woman (43); and if a man abandon his 
wife, he is to be punished. No husband shall desert his 
wife, except for the cause allowed in Scripture—criminal 
conduct. And still more remarkable, the slave is pro- 
tected in his marriage, and even if the partners be sold 
to different masters, the union is still lawful and must be 
respected.*| The Christian abhorrence which first animated 
the Roman law against unnatural vice, appears in the 
capitularies. The great emperor speaks of the Roman 
Law as “the mother of all human laws;” and draws a 
warning from the fate of the natiohs of Spain and the 
tribes of the Burgundians, who had been given up to 
unnatural vices and were therefore permitted by God to 
be enslaved by the Saracens.® 

His law also shows mercy to the outlaw (zvargendum) 
by making his blood-money the same as for killing a. 
Frank. He repeats the humane phrase, unfortunately too 
often only a phrase: “ Ecclesia abhorret sanguine” (the 


1, . . ut caveant perjurium, non solum in sancto Evangelio, 
vel in altare, seu in sanctorum reliquiis, sed in communi loquella, 
SiC mgs) 


2 Lib\-7./c. cclii. 

* Nullus conjugem propriam nisi ut sanctum conjugium docet, for- 
nicationis causa, relinquat. Cap. Reg. Fr., c. |xxxvii. 

4 Unde nobis visum est ut conjugia servorum non dirimuntur, etiamsi 
diversos dominos habeant sed in uno conjugio permanentes. (Add. 
Derencuiv.) 

» Sicut aliis gentibus Hispaniz et Provincee et Burgundiorum populis 
contigit, que, sic a Deo recedentes, fornicatze sunt, donec Judex 
Omnipotens, etc. (Cap. 4, 16.) See also lib. 7, cxlii. Ut monachi se- 
cundum regulam vivant. 


CHRISTIAN IN LEGISLATION. 205 


Church abhorreth blood); he calls cupidity the root 
of all evil; and recommends hospitality for the reason 
that he who receiveth a little child in the name of 
Christ, receiveth Him; the observance of Sunday was 
ordered, which is a special legislation for the working- 
classes; respect for the dead was encouraged, and the 
obligation of prayer impressed on all. The laity were 
ordered to learn the Apostles’ Creed ; and, to soften them, 
the emperor quotes incessantly from the precepts of 
Christianity, forbidding the oppression of the poor and 
humble, and ordering the judges to hear the cause of the 
poor before that of the rich. To break up the ancient 
feuds which desolated society, he orders: that whoever 
slays his enemy after peace has been declared, must lose 
his hand and pay a fine (cap. 50). The stranger and far- 
comer are especially protected, under the injunctions in 
the Bible, and because such may be journeying in the 
service of their common Master.! 


It is true that much of this legislation was violated in 
practical experience, and that it was largely swept away 
after the death of the great reformer. But it shows with 
remarkable clearness, what the direct influence of this Faith 
from Judza was upon legislation through the wild period 
of the Middle Ages, and what it tended to bring about. 


1 Advenam non contristabis, etc. (Lib. xxviii.) Nemo enim ausus 
sit inquietare vel nocere peregrinum, etc. (Lib. 7.) 


CHAPTER’ XIX 
ANGLO-SAXON LAW, 


THERE are two opposite difficulties in weighing correctly 
the influence of religious faith-on the laws, and thus on 
the morals of a country: one, that the laws may be far in 
advance of the practice of a people and thus merely repre- 
sent the ideals of conduct ; and the other, that the practice 
and customs may have far preceded the legislation, which 
is thus only a “survival” of an ancient period. In regard 
to the Anglo-Saxons or Old English, it would appear that 
the legislation of their kings and assemblies was much in 
advance morally of the habits of the people ; and that it 
represented *the new and living moral forces which were 
gradually to change England from barbarism to civili- 
zation. That these forces were essentially Christian, is 
evident from the chronicles and biographies of the period, 
and especially from the language of the legislation, and the 
motives habitually employed in it to promote good action. 
The great peculiarity of the Christian system of morals is 
the impulse given to virtuous and disinterested action by 
regard to a Person, toa pérfect life and character, which 
has supernatural relations, and by a consideration of con- 
sequences in another existence. These features are espe- 
cially stamped in the Anglo-Saxon legislation. Whether 
the well-known religious character of some of the kings, or 
the deep religious tendencies of the law-makers, have given 


these peculiarities to old English laws, is uncertain. It is 
206 


—_—— = eS eS - 


ANGLO-SAXON LAW. 207 


= 


well-known that the ministers of religion at that era in 
England were, to a large degree, lawyers; and they exer- 
cised a powerful influence on the making of laws. It was 
an influence, however, moral rather than ecclesiastical or 
technical. The Anglo-Saxon laws certainly form a great 
contrast, in this respect, to most other codes of that age. 
Society in England was more barbarous, and more stained 
by crime and violence than on the continent of Europe. 
But no ancient code of the German or Keltic tribes in 
France and Germany (with the exception of Charlemagne’s 
Capitularies), or of the Welsh in Britain of the same period 
breathes any such religious spirit or such pure morality 
founded on Christian faith, The Anglo-Saxon laws, too, 
have avoided the errors of the Christian Church in separat- 
ing morality and faith: they are nearer the great Master, 
in teaching the direct connection of good action or pure 
thoughts, and respect or love for Him. It is true that in 
England, as in all other countries, the teachings of Christ 
_ were forgotten or obscured by superstition, or submerged 
by tides of human passion and selfishness, and Christianity 
was eclipsed there as it has been everywhere in the world. 
But for a time we see its clear light shining in English 
history, and we know how many fogs of ancient prejudice 
it dispelled ; how many abuses it silently melted, and 
what a soil it prepared for all that is best in English 
srowth since. It did not indeed accomplish all that 
might be expected from its power. But history is long; 
and the life of one nation can show but an inconsiderable 
part of the effects of this renovating influence. It is 
sufficient to describe forces which are capable in their 
nature of bringing about a complete and perfect moral 
transformation of society. 

In the British Islands, as through all Europe, among 
the tribes outside of Roman law, personal revenge, as we 


208 GESTA CHRISTI. 


have already stated, and family feuds took the place for 
a long period of legal and judicial punishments. Society 
was resolved almost to its primeval savage elements. 
The first influence of Christianity in England (as else- 
where) was to curb personal revenge, by encouraging the 
existing system of dof or fines, so that every kind of offence 
should be compensated for by some amend, paid in pro- 
perty, in part to the sufferer, in part to the king. From 
this, the next step is to a strict legal and perhaps bloody 
punishment by the proper authorities, instead of which no 
payment can be accepted. Then, beyond this, come the 
milder punishments, inculcated by the spirit of humanity. 
Religion aids, in each of these steps, but in England, as 
throughout Europe, it checked private revenge, especially 
by the “ Peace of God” enforced on certain holy days, and 
in certain places; and by the refuge offered in the churches 
to the victim fleeing from the anger of a powerful enemy. 
All these privileges offered by the Church tended to re- 
strain passion in that wild age. Itis an instance, too, of the 
peculiar effect of Christianity, that the freeing of bondmen 
or the prohibition of their sale in foreign countries, from 
the earliest Saxon laws down into the Norman period, is 
always accompanied by such words as that “it is not right 
to sell him for whom Christ hath died.” The commands 
against unchastity, or cruelty, or oppression, are all ac- 
companied with religious motives. In fact, the laws often 
sound more like pastoral letters than legislation from war- 
like kings. A remarkable heading of a law in regard to 
honesty in King Canute’s code, “Ad Eucharistiam et 
probitatem” (about the sacraments and integrity) might 
give a rebuke to the Christianity of our own day. 

The Laws of Old English Kings.—From King Wiht- 
raed, } about 690 A.D., we hear that “men living in illicit 

' Thorpe’s Collection of Anglo-Saxon Laws (No. 3). 


MORAL TEACHINGS OF SAXON KINGS. 209 


intercourse should take to a righteous life with repent- 
ance of their sins, or that they be separated from the 
Church.” Howell the Good, in the beginning of the tenth 
century, ordered his Welsh subjects to hold their assem- 
blies in Lent, “because in holy tyme every one should 
be pure, and should do no wrong at a time of purity.” 

One provision of his laws shows the effort of the reli- 
gious officials to promote the integrity of the judges. “A 
judge is to serve a year’s apprenticeship, and then the king's 
chaplain is to take him to the church, having with him 
twelve principal ecclesiastical officers, to celebrate Mass. 
And after Mass and an offering by every one, let the chap- 
lain require him to swear by the relics, and by the altar, 
and by the consecrated elements placed on the altar, that 
he will never deliver a wrong judgment knowingly.” } 

King Alfred (about 870 A.D.) introduces his code with the 
ten commandments and other laws taken from the Bible: he 
quotes almost directly from Exodus a command especially 
applicable to his age: “ Vex not the far comers and stran- 
gers: for ye were once strangers in the land of Egypt.” 
(No. 33.) The “doom” on slaves has the humanity of the 
Mosaic law: “If any one buy a Christian bondsman, let 
him be bondsman to him six years ; the seventh be he free 
unbought. With such clothes as he went in, with such go 
he out.” Justice is to be impartial. “ Doom’thou very 
evenly ; doom thou not one doom to the wealthy, another 
to the poor; nor one doom to the more loved, other to the 
more loathed, doom thou not.” (No. 41.) Of his laws, the 
king says: “These are the dooms that the Almighty God 
Himself spake to Moses, and bade him to hold ; and when 
the Lord’s only begotten Son, that is Christ the Healer, on 
middle earth came, He said that He came not these dooms 
to break nor to gainsay, but with all good to do, and with 

1 Quoted by Bridgett (Haddam and Stubbs, 1, 229.). 
me 


210 GELS TAS CARATS TE, 


all mild heartedness and lowly mindedness to teach them”? 
“ That ye will- that other men do not to you, do ye not 
that to other men. From this one doom,a man may think 
that he should doom every one rightly ; he need keep no 
other doom-book. Let him take heed that he doom to no 
man that he would not that he doom to him, if he sought 
doom over him.” rie 

Through all the Saxon and early Norman laws, the 
interests of the working classes are protected in the matter 
of Sunday. If a bondman work on Sunday by his Jord’s 
order, the lord must pay a fine of thirty shillings; if without 
this order,he must be flogged. If a freeman work with- 
out his lord’s order, he must forfeit his freedom or pay 
sixty shillings; a priest pays double. Under Edgar and 
Guthrum (about goo A.D.) we find: “If any one engage in 
Sunday. marketings, let hinytoriettheichatt elias een le 
a lord oblige his slave to work on a festival day, let him 
pay the fine.” (No. 7.) In another law, a wrong to a 
foreigner is held as wrong done to Christ and the king. 
(No. 12.) We have already stated that by the customs 
of the country, if a wreck happened on the coast, the cargo . 
- and crew fell into the hands of the king, and in many 
countries the crew might be enslaved, and that every 
foreign merchant trafficking among the English must. give 
hostages for his good conduct,—so that it will be understood 
how important were the Jewish and Christian directions of 
kindness to the stranger in the Anglo-Saxon law. The 
following law of King Wihtraed (700 A.D.) gives a curious 
picture of the state of England: “If a far-coming man or 
a stranger get out of the high way, and he then neither 
shout nor blow a horn, he is to be accounted a thief, either 
to be:slain or'redeemed.” ? (No, 28.) 


1 Hughes’ Translation. 
* The same law appears in King Ine’s code. No, 20, 


RELIGIOUS LAWS. 21% 


False Swearing —King Edward (940-946) commands 
that “those who swear falsely and work enchantments, 
let them be for ever cast out of all communion with God, 
unless they turn to repentance.” (No. 6.) 

The religious impulse appears especially in King Ethel- 
red’s dooms. (978 A.D.) “ This then first: that we all love 
and worship one God, and zealously hold one Christianity 

. that every man be regarded as entitled to right ; 
and that peace and friendship be lawfully observed within 
the land before God and before the world.” (No. 1.) 
“ And let every Christian man carefully eschew unlawful 
concubinage and rightly observe the Divine laws.” (No. 
16). “And at those holy tides (certain religious days) 
let there be, as is right, to all Christian men, general peace 
and concord and let every strife be appeased.” (No. 19.) 
The following seems the injunction of a Christian pastor 
rather than of a king: “ And let God’s law be henceforth 
zealously loved by word and deed, then will God soon be 
merciful to this nation.” (No. 26.) “We will also yet 
earnestly admonish every friend, as it is our duty fre- 
quently to do, that every one earnestly consider himself, 
and that he earnestly turn from his sins and that he correct 
other men for injustice, and that above all things he love 
his Lord.” (No. 42.) “And that they comfort and feed 
God sipoor omni And: thats theys,do*not too’ often 
oppress widows and step-children, but willingly gladden 
them.” (Nos. 46-49.) “And let every injustice be care- 
fully cast out from this country as far as can be done. 
And let fraudulent deeds and hateful illegalities be ear- 
nestly shunned ; that is, false weights and wrong measures, 
and lying witnesses, and shameful fightings,” etc. “And 
it is the ordinance of the General Assembly, that Christian 
men be not for altogether too little cause condemned to 
death; but in general let mild punishments be decreed for 


212 GUS TANCTTRIST Ms 


4 


the people’s need; and let not for a little, God’s own 
handiwork and His purchase be destroyed, which He 
dearly bought . . . And let him who judges others 
bear in mind very seriously what he himself desires, when 
he says: Et dimitte nobis debita nostra.” (vi. 10.) 

The ancient laws of King Canute (1017 A.D.) have the 
tone of a sermon: “Let every Christian man do as is needful 
for him, let him keep his Christianity,” etc. “Let every 
man guide his words and works aright, and carefully keep 
oath and pledge, and let every injustice be strictly cast out 
of this country, as far as it can be done, and let God’s law 
be henceforth earnestly loved by word and by work, then 
will God’s mercy be more ready for us all.” (No. 19.) 
“ And we instruct that every one ever guard himself against 
foul lasciviousness, and against every kind of fornication, 
and against every kind of adultery. And we also instruct 
every man that he earnestly have the dread of God in his 
mind, and by day and by night that he fear for sins, 
dread doomsday, and shudder for hell, and ever suppose 
the end of his day near to him.” (Nos. 24, 25.) This again 
has the special stamp of the new teaching: “Let us ever - 
help those who especially stand most in need of help, 
then shall we obtain the reward of it where it will be most 
pleasing to us. For we ought always for love and fear 
of God, to doom and command more lightly to the feeble 
than to the strong, because we know full well that the 
powerless cannot raise a like burthen with the powerful, 
nor the unhale alike with the hale . . . And both in 
religious shrifts and secular dooms, these things ought to 
be scattered abroad.” (No. 69.) In regard to the sale of 
a woman as ward or wife, Canute’s law says: “And let no 
one compel either woman or maiden to him, when she 
mislikes, nor for money sell her.” (Z. Caz., Ixxv.) And as 
to mercy to wrong-doers, this humane legislation directs: 


SAXON PIETY. 213 


“Tf any one will earnestly turn him from wrong again to 
right, let him have mercy shown him, or fear of God, as 
best may be, very earnestly.” In a very ancient Anglo- 
Saxon writing, “ The Institutes of Polity,” it is said, that 
“seven things are befitting a righteous king: first, that 
he have very great awe of God; second, that he ever love 
righteousness; third, that he be humble before God ; 
fourth, rigid towards evil; fifth, that he comfort and feed 
God’s poor; sixth, further and protect God's Church; and 
seventh, that towards friends and strangers alike, he be 
cuided by just judgment.” ! (No. 111.) 

Of judges, it is said: “they need to love justice before 
God, and before the world, and nowhere through unjust 
judgement for money or for friendship neglect their duty, 
so that they turn justice to injustice, or adjudicate unjust 
judgment to the injury of the poor; but it is their duty 
above all things to honour and defend the Church, and 
gladden widows and step-children, and help the poor and 
protect the slaves, if they will rightly execute God’s will. 
Thieves and public wrong-doers they shall hate, and 
spoilers and robbers they shall condemn, unless they 
desist, and they shall ever rigidly shun injustice. Woe 
to him who practises wrong too long, unless he desist right 
surely shall he pass through the dim and dark abyss of 
Beeeoralm@nelpadeprived,) +. *.), Let-every one guard 
himself, so that he anger not God too greatly, but pro- 
pitiate his Lord with righteous deeds.” (v.) 


Feuds.-—Nearly all the Teutonic tribes, as we have said, 
had a custom or a law, that the inheritance of the land 
carried with it the inheritance of the armour, and the 
family-feud or wltio proximt. 


1 Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes. 


214. GESTAGCCA Liat 1. 


One of the first objects of the English rulers under the 
new impulse of humanity is to curb this bloodthirsty spirit. 

In the ancient Welsh laws, feud was lessened by estab- 
lishing certain protections for every attendant of the court, 
and for given hours of the day and fixed places." 

King Edmund also makes “known to all people, beth 
old and young, that are in my dominion, what I have 
deliberated in the Council of my Assembly, first, How I 
might most promote Christianity. To me and to us all 
are exceedingly offensive the unrighteous and manifold 
fichtings that are among ourselves. If any one henceforth 
slay any man, that he himself bear the feud unless with 
the aid of his friends, and within twelve months he com- 
pensate with the full amend, be he born as he may. But 
if the kindred forsake him and will not pay for him, then 
I will that.all the kindred be free of the feud, except the 
doer, if afterwards they do not give him either food or 
protection.” 

Almost the first provision of the ancient Saxon code of 
/Ethelbirht (who was baptized in 597 A.D.) was to make the 


fine for revenging a feud in the refuge of the Church, double . 


of that in any other violation of sanctuary. 

By King Ine’s law, “If any one take revenge before he 
demand justice, let him give up what he has taken to 
himself, and pay the damage done and make amend with 
thirty-five shillings.” (No. 9.) 

Feuds were restrained by the “ Peace of God” declared 
on certain days,? to violate which would expose the of- 
fender to severe punishments. Certain places also were 
made inviolable sanctuaries. Wengeance at private festivals, 


1 See Thorpe’s Laws of Wales. This curious code is full of pro- 
visions to restrain feud ; and the most archaic penal provisions. 

2 Ab adventu Domini usque ad octavum Epiphanie pax Dei, et 
sancte Ecclesie per omne regnum. Leg. Ed. Can., No. 2. (1047 A.D.) 


RESTRAINING FEUD. ars 


was restrained by such remarkable laws as the following : 
“At a banquet or any gathering, those assembling must 
first agree to maintain the peace of God and of the house- 
master. If any one has a feud he must engage to satisfy 
his adversary by pledge in a certain place ; but if they 
cannot arrange, the guilty one must leave the banquet ; 
but if after this, one troubles it, he shall pay a fine.” (Laws 
—Henry I. 1101 A.D. No.1, 2.) In the ancient laws in 
regard to the Duz Setas' (mountain-dwellers) or the natives 
of Wales, a new spirit will be seen after the introduction 
of Christianity. The Welshman is no longer hunted as a 
wild beast; he is permitted to pay fines like an English- 
man, and personal raids on his territory are not per- 
mitted. “If a Welshman slay an Englishman, he need 
not pay for him on this side, except with half his fine, no 
more than an Englishman, on that side,” etc. LNG) 

These provisions only express the early substitution of 
humanity for barbarism in the bitter feuds and enmities 
between two neighbouring peoples, and this under the in- 
fuence of the new Faith—a single instance of the trans- 
formation going on throughout Europe. 


Alfred, in the introduction to his laws, expressly states 
it as a special result of the “ Faith of Christ,” that many 
nations through their religious assemblies had ordained, 
“out of that mercy which Christ had taught,” that secular 
lords might without sin take for almost every misdeed; on 
the first offence, a money Jot or fine which was fixed by 
law. This at once took away the necessity for revenge, 
and substituted law and legal punishment for personal ven- 
geance. Individual passion he seeks in every way to 
restrain, “We also command that the man who knoweth 
his foe to be home-sitting, fight not before he demandcth 

1 Thorpe’s Collection. 


216 GLSTA CHRIS IL. 


of him” (No. 42); and in various laws, the good king 
seeks to hold back the bloodthirsty passions of the day. 
There are more than thirty laws in his code, establishing 
bots or fines for various offences. 

In all these words of human brotherhood, of piety, and 
the spirit of justice, of pity and humanity, uttered by the 
barbaric lawgivers of a wild race, there speaks a great 
Personality—the embodiment of the highest sympathy 
and most disinterested virtue of mankind. 

It cannot be said indeed that these religious influences, 
so apparently genuine, produced any powerful effect on 
society in Anglo-Saxon England, though they modified 
the laws. Still they began the history of the religious 
forces in England, which, though obscured by much for- 
malism and hypocrisy and weakened by selfishness, have 
yet worked out slowly the great moral and humane reforms 
in the history of that country, and have tended with other 
influences to make it one of the great leaders of modern 
progress. 


4 
% 
ay 


GHAR DER. XX: 
EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 


THERE can be no doubt that the peculiar interpretation 
given by the early Fathers, especially by Augustine, to 
the Old Testament, and their views of inspiration, often 
caused the Church to be .opposed to science and mental 
progress. Christianity, however, in its essential power, 
tends to open the intellect to truth; to cultivate the 
humility and the fair-mindedness which especially enable 
the mind to see what is, as it is ; and, awakening the whole 
moral nature, to indirectly arouse the purely intellectual 
faculties. 

The mental stimulus given to Europe in different ages 
by non-Christian forces, is ever to be gratefully acknow- 
ledged. Roman law, Greek and Roman literature have 
not yet spent their influences on human progress. Arabic 
science had for one period a prodigious power. Yet it 
becomes increasingly evident that the races which have 
been partially (though imperfectly) moulded by Chris- 
tianity, are to be the leading powers in the intellectual 
and scientific progress of mankind. The especial truths 
of Christ were not apparently intended to affect science 
or intellectual advancement. Yet, being in harmony with 
the most complete and healthy moral condition of man, 
they did so arouse and dignify the whole nature as to 
fit it for high mental progress. They tended to form a 
candid, generous, self-forgetting character, intensely in- 


217 


216 ai", CEST AV ORR US Is 


terested in moral truths, and things unseen and eternal; 
a character which would naturally also concern itself with 
other researches, beside those religious. . Hence it is proba- 
bly, that for eighteen centuries, the Christian believer has 
been the especial leader in science ; for we include under 
the “Christian” character, even those scientific sceptics 
who have grown up under all the peculiar influences of 
Christianity. | | 

The Church, it must be admitted, has often been entirely 
false to the candid, charitable and humble type of cha- 
racter, taught by the Master. Its bigotry, intellectual 
narrowness and one-sidedness, its opposition to science 
and freedom of thought, its cruelty towards those of dif. 
fering opinion and indifference to intellectual activity, and: 
its want of charity, have no foundation or excuse in the 
Gospels. But, while lamenting its errors, we must never 
forget its great services to intellectual progréss. In ages 
of brutal violence and of barbarous ignorance, the religious 
associations of convents and monasteries became the 
shelter of learning and study. The classics were revived 
under the shades of the cloister. The lamp of science and. 
literature was kept burning during the “dark ages” in 
the monk’s cell. Manuscripts were painfully copied and 
the relics of a higher intellectual age were preserved to 
animate a future century. Without the influence of these 
monasteries and churches, Europe would have sunk into 
a yet.darker ignorance, and we might have had in Ger- 
many, France and Italy, the history repeated’ of the 
Byzantine Empire ;—a degradation and ignorance which 
would require the shock of foreign conquest to dispel and 
remove. 3 

The Christian Church, from -the very first centuries, 
naturally connected itself with the school. ‘The child 
under the view of Christianity took (as we have often 


prepng ~~. 


EARLY CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS. 219 


said) a very different position from that under Roman law 
or classic custom. When Christ called the little ones to 
His arms and blessed them, they became for ever con- 
secrated in Christian tradition. Their mental condition 
must also not be neglected. The Councils early began 
to consider this. 

The Council of Vaison (529 A.D.) thus treats of edu- 
cation: “It hath seemed good to us that. priests with 
parishes should receive into their houses, according to a 
sound custom in Italy, young readers to whom they give 
spiritual nourishment, teaching them to study, to attach 
themselves to holy books and to knew the law of God.” 
The Synod of Orleans (799) thus exhorts : Shel ie priests 
in villages and towns hold schools, in order that all the 
children entrusted to them, can receive the first notion 
of letters. Let them take no money for their lessons.” 
(Theod., cap. 20.) 

The Council of Chalons (813) decreed! that bishops 
should establish schools where both literature and Scrip- 
tures should be taught. Still another Council proclaimed 
(859): ‘Let one raise everywhere public schools, that the 
Church of God may everywhere gather the double fruit of 
religion.” (Conc. Ling., cap. 10.) 

The Council of Mayence (813) orders the priests to 
exhort the fathers of families to send children to schools 
_ opened in monasteries, in order that they may learn to 
pray and be fortified in the Christian faith. Another 
Council (826) at Rome orders three kinds of schools to 
be founded in all Christendom; firstly, episcopal schools 
in towns ; secondly, village schools ; and thirdly, wherever 
necessary. 

1 | | ut episcopi scholas constituant in quibus et litteraria 


solertia disciplines et sacree Scripture documenta discantur.” (Cove. 
Cub., cap. 3+) 


220 GES FAR CHIRIS LY. 


The Council of Trent commands that the children of 
the poor have at least one master to teach poor scholars 
grammar gratuitously.' Charlemagne had already (780) 
given these wise instructions: “Let one open schools to 
teach children to read; let, in every monastery, in every 
bishopric, some one teach psalms, writing, arithmetic, ¢ram- 
mar, and employ correct copies of holy books ; for often 
men seeking to pray to God, pray badly on account of 
the unfaithfulness of copyists.” (Cap. Ecc, 61-66.) | 

A beautiful letter on this topic, nominally from this 
remarkable man, has come down to us, addressed to the 
Abbot of Fulda (787 A.D.): “ During past years we have 
often received letters from different monasteries, informing 
us that at their sacred services, the brethren offered up 
prayers on our behalf; and we have observed that the 
thoughts contained in those letters, though in themselves 
most just, were expressed in uncouth language. And while 
pious devotion dictated the sentiments, the unlettered 
tongue was unable to express them aright. Hence there 
has arisen in our mind the fear; lest if the skill to write 
correctly were thus lacking, so too would the power of: 
rightly comprehending the sacred Scripture be far less 
than was fitting. And we all know, that though verbal 
errors be dangerous, errors of the understanding are yet 
more so. We exhort you, therefore, not only not to 
neglect the study of letters, but to apply yourselves thereto 
with that humility which is well pleasing to God ; so that 
you may be able to penetrate with greater ease and cct- 
tainty the mysteries of the Holy Scripture. ‘For as these 
contain images, tropes and similar figures, it is impossible 
to doubt that a reader will arrive far more readily at the 
spiritual sense, according as he is better instructed in 


1“... qui clericos aliosque scholares pauperes grammaticam 
gratis doceat.” (Come. Trid. oct.) 


LETTER OF CHARLEMAGNE. 221 


learning. Let there therefore be chosen for this work, men 
who are both able and willing to learn and also desirous 
of instructing others; and let them apply themselves to 
the work with a zeal equal to the earnestness with which 
we recommend it to them. 

“Tt is our wish that you may be what it behoves the 
soldiers of the Church to be, religious in heart, pure in act, 
eloquent in speech, so that all that approach your house, 
in order to invoke the Divine Master, or to behold the 
excellence of your religious life, may be edified in be- 
holding you, and instructed in hearing you discourse or 
chant, and return home, rendering thanks to God most 
high.” (Const. de Scholis. Baluze.) 

We have again an instruction of Theodolfus (796 A.D.), 
under Charlemagne: 

“Let the elders found schools through the towns and 
villages; and if any of the faithful desire their little chil- 
dren to be commended to them for learning liberal studies, 
let them not refuse to receive them, but teach them with 
the utmost charity.” ? 

All these exhortations were not without their effect, and 
great numbers of schools sprang up throughout Christen- 
dom; an immense quantity of manuscripts were also 
copied by the monks. 

From the sixth to the fifteenth centuries there was a 
deep interest in the monasteries in copying and binding 
manuscripts, especially of classic authors. The following 
striking words are from a monk who has exerted a deep 
influence on the world: “Do not trouble yourself at the 
fatigue of your work, for God, who is the source of every 
good and just labour, will give the reward, according to 
your efforts, in eternity. When you shall be no more, 


1 Presbyteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant et si quilibet fidelium 
suos parvulos ad discendas literas, etc. 


222 GES TA ACA RTS, 


those who will read the books, once copied by you with 
elegance, will pray for you; and as he who gives a glass 
of cold water does not lose ‘his reward, so he who gives 
forth the living water of wisdom, will receive more surely 
his recompense in heaven.” ! | 

A Council (1179) proclaims: “As the Church of God is 
provider of those who have need of the nourishment of 
such, as well as of those who fail of success of body; in 
order that the poor whose relatives fail of resources may 
have the possibility of learning to read and to be in- 
structed, we appoint in every Cathedral church a master 
to instruct clerks and poor scholars. . . . Let one re- 
establish this in monasteres where it has existed anciently ; 
but let no one demand pay for teaching.” (Cone. Concl) 

All classes studied in these monastic schools, so that rich 
and poor were brought together on the field of learning, 
Nor were the popes altogether wanting to the intellectual 
movement. Pope Innocent IV. (1254) publicly recom- 
mended philosophic study instead of legal. A decree of 
Clement V. directed Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldee to be 
taught in the monasteries. Sylvester II. is said to have. 
introduced Arabic numbers into Christian Europe. 


We do not continue the enumeration of these evidences 
of the services of the Church to learning in the Middle 
Ages, because they are only indirectly the effect of Chris- 
tianity. All that we urge is, that the Christian teachings, 
in their natural and legitimate influence, open the mind of 
man to truth, and by their moral power awaken the whole 
nature and thus stimulate the intellect. 

The position of the Church on Biblical inspiration, and 
therefore towards science, and her fierce bigotry towards 
differing opinions, receive no countenance from the Master. 


' Thomas 4 Kempis, Doct. Fuv., c. iv. 


GHRISTIANITY. STIMULATES THE INTELLECT. :223 


It is true that He teaches that child-like humility and 
purity will lead to higher spiritual and moral truth than 
mere learning or scholarship. And Paul proclaims that 
in a future existence, the moral powers will exist when 
intellectual acquirements have been found to be of little 
worth. 

But neither of these aspects belittle science in this 
world. Indeed, the Christian “simplicity” is one of the 
suarantees to the scholar that he will attain truth and not 
be led away, as have been so many, by the false lights of 
conceit and prejudice. The whole world might be entirely 
inspired with the Faith of Christ, and yet no obstacle 
offered anywhere to the freest scientific research, but 
the path of knowledge be made easier, in that all men 
sought justice and mercy, and truth was the holiest thing. 


CA aa OL 
SERFDOM AND SLAVERY IN THE MIDDLE AGES, | 


UNDER the Romans, in the Later Empire, as we have 
already said, serfdom arose almost naturally from the 
universal disorder and chaos of society. The slave, if 
freed, could not protect himself, and preferred the state 
of half freedom and of safety which serfdom offered. The 
small farmer found himself better guarded from robbers 
and invaders, by attaching himself as serf (czguzlznus) to 
the estate of some powerful nobleman or leader. The 
wealthy patron at Rome rewarded his faithful clients by 
bestowing on them parcels of land in the provinces, where 
they were attached, as colonz, to the soil; and again, the 


government settled bodies of prisoners or immigrants. 


on large districts of public land, and made them serfs to 
the soil. These! coloni (or adscriptitit) were considered as 
free-born, but attached to the soil; they could fall into 
slavery, and if they ran away from their estates, they 


might be punished with servitude. Their marriage was 


held legitimate, and the children, by a mild provision due > 


to religious influences, followed the condition of the father; 
they were excluded from the army and from _ public 
honours, but could become priests with the consent of the 
master ;—this provision showing one mode in which the 
Church could indirectly emancipate them. They were freed 


1 Du Cange, Coloni. 
224 


CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE UPON SLAVERY. 225 


from any tax to the government, and could only be sold 
with the land; the land could not be sold without them. 
As far back as Marcus Aurelius, the legacy left by a mas- 
ter of a serf not attached to an estate, was not good in 
law.! A colonus could be, under certain circumstances, a 
frecholder. Salvian speaks of the poor farmers who had 
made themselves serfs for the sake of protection. 

As we have noticed before, the Roman laws modified 
by the new teachings began at once to protect the serfs. 
The penalty of death was denounced in Gaul on him who 
should seize the persons of serfs or serf-stewards (v2//icz) 
in payment of debts or taxes. The laws of Constantine 
forbade the separation of near relatives among slaves of 
the soil; husband could not be separated from wife, nor 
parents from children.’ 

A runaway slave or serf who had been free for twenty 
years, or had held a public office, or had been in military 
service, or had voted in the assembly, was presumed to be 
free, and could defend his own rights. A free-born person, 
or one who became a slave by violence, could always 
reclaim his liberty.2 The child became free, even if the 
mother had been enslaved within the nine months before its 
birth ; or if the mother was a slave and was emancipated 
without her own knowledge, the child was free. The effect 
of the Faith from Galilee was to make all the presumptions 
in favour of liberty. Freed slaves became Roman citizens 
in the presence of the assembly (ecclesta) and the bishops 
who signed the acts of manumission. The clergy did not 
need such formalities, but could free by word of mouth. 


1 Si quis inquilinos sine preediis quibus adherent legaverit, inutile 
est lezatum. (D. de legat., 11, 12.) 

"Cad. Lheod., 11, 25, 1; 

8 [bid., iv. 7, 2. 

SRIOTdiAV. 7, 11. 


226 GESTAVCARISTE 


The various Church Councils thundered their anathemas 
at those who re-enslaved those freed under religious forms. 
The reformed law under the influences from the Gospel 
teaching differed from the Roman law in admitting a kind 
of marriage between slaves (contubernium), for the reason 
that “‘ We have a common Father in Heaven.” ! 

Both slavery and serfdom descended into the Middle 
Ages. The Christian Church struggled to a certain degree 
against these abuses. But, whether this organization was 
faithful or not to its Master, the spirit of Christianity 
worked continually on individuals, and thus on society, to 
mitigate and remove these evils. Still slavery in the 
Middle Ages presented some of its most peculiar features. 
Up to the twelfth century, there was an absolute power 
of the master over the life of the slave. After this, only 
a slight fine was inflicted for his death, while cruel punish- 
ments by the owner were permitted. The latter had also 
full control over the slave’s property and earnings. Even 
the marriage was not held fully equal to the Christian tie. 
For several centuries after Christ, the barbarian nations 
did not receive benediction, or hold religious ceremonials 
at the nuptials of slaves. When this began to possess more 
the character of a legal union, a slave marrying without 
the consent of his master was liable to severe punishment, 
even of death; this was later reduced to a fine alone. All 
the children of the slave became the property of the mas- 
ter, and could be sold like any other property. 

The slave had no title to anything but his clothes 
and subsistence; if he had a property (feculium) given 
him by his master, he could not save out of it. All his 
effects at his death fell to his master. He was distin- 
guished by his dress and appearance from other classes; 


1... quia unum patrem habemus in ccelo. 


ACTS FPAVGURABLEVTOSSLAVES. * 227, 


even his testimony could not be received against freemen. 
From this condition of severe bondage there was, through- 
out Europe, a gradual and often unnoticed passage to 
serfdom. | 

As early as 119 A.D. we hear that Hermes, a Prefect of 
Rome, being converted, presented 1,250 slaves for baptism, 
all having been freed. Another Prefect, Chromatius (284 
A.D.), after his conversion to Christianity, is related to have 
freed 40 slaves, first having baptized them, with the words : 
“Those who begin to be children of God ought not to be 
slaves of man.” 

Thirty-seven Church Councils are reported to have 
passed acts favourable to slaves. In the year 305, any 
master ill-treating his slaves is condemned ; in 517, the 
murderer of a slave is excommunicated ; in 549, the right 
of asylum in a Christian church is offered to the runaway, 
and slaves freed by the Church are protected; in 666, 
bishops or priests ill-treating slaves are severely punished. 
In 441, emancipation is protected and encouraged ; in 585, 
the ornaments and property of the Church are permitted 
to be sold for ransoming slaves; in 566, Christians are 
forbid reducing freemen to slavery, and in 922, no Chris- 
tian is permitted to enslave a fellow Christian. In 656, 
any slave compelled to work upon Sundays becomes free 
by the fact, or if he be held over the font for baptism. 
This idea that baptism made free, existed even as late as 
the American colonial history, when American masters 
hesitated to baptize, lest by the act they freed their slaves.’ 

The forbidding the labour of slaves on Sunday and 


1 There are two acts reported of the Virginia Colonial Assembly, 
assuring to the masters the undisturbed condition of slavery, after 
the baptism of their slaves. (Anderson’s fst. of Col. Ch, vol. ii. 
p. 552; vol. iii, p. 227.) See also Hefelen, Conciliengeschichte, and | 
Landon’s Manual of Councils. 


228 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Festival days was a humane protection ; the scourging of 
slaves or driving away their cattle was denounced under 
the strictest penalties, The West-Gothic laws were es- 
pecially under the influences of the Church ; and they are 
remarkable as carefully protecting the honour and the 
marriage of bondmen. Under them, the serf could trans- 
mit and inherit property, and appear in a court of law. 
The monasteries gradually ceased to sell serfs, and forbade 
their exchange. Step by step this class could give testi- 
mony, and certain individuals act as judges; they were 
allowed to carry on trades and even to win knighthood. 
In the twelfth century, Adrian IV. confirmed the mar- 
riage of slaves against the will of the masters, in the 
most solemn manner The property of serfs was more 
and more secured to them.?. The Church encouraged | 
manumissions at festivals, at births and deaths; and 
made all forms of manumission full forms of freedom. It 
enacted laws that if a ‘serf saved a certain sum, the 
master was obliged to free him on payment of this; and 
it made all bondmen free who entered the service of 
Church or State. | 

The Christian belief and impulse tended everywhere to 
undermine both serfdom and slavery ; and encouraged the 
ransoming of slaves and prevented the slave trade, espe- 
cially the selling of Christians. 

Among much similar legislation, the decree of the 
Council of Chalons (650 A.D.), with forty-four bishops in 
session, ordered that no Christian slaves should be sold 
outside the kingdom of Clovis, with the words, “The 


1 Si contradicentibus dominis et invitis, matrimonia servorum 
contracta fuerint, nulla ratione sunt propter hoc dissolvenda. (Cap. 
Wp derek e) 

2 Non licet pecuniam suam servo auferre quam ipse labore suo 
adquisiverit. Lgberti. Conf, c. 35. 


& 


RELIGIOUS EMANCIPATION. 229 


highest pity and religion demand that Christians should 
be removed entirely from the bonds of servitude.”! The 
melancholy trains of slaves in the various slave markets of 
Europe, which used to offend the eyes of the humane, were 
gradually removed. - The slave trade was punished, as an 
act of “diabolic inspiration” in the ninth century, though 
this indignation did not reach the trade in heathen slaves. 

An edict? of Charles le Chauve (864) threatened a heavy 
fine on’ those who sold beyond sea such unfortunate 
persons as were reduced to slavery by famine. 

It was a not uncommon practice for the poor in the 
Middle Ages to sell themselves into slavery, or to become 
slaves by debt. The new humane legislation permitted 
such persons to buy their freedom by paying the purchase 
money with one-fifth in addition, or by a sufficient duration 
of the service. 

The religious element in emancipation is seen strikingly 
in the forms of manumission of the Middle Ages, trans- 
mitted to us by Marculfus, and in the words of those urging 
the duty of freedom, as well as in the ceremonies used. 
Pope Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, 
proclaims that inasmuch as the Redeemer of men had 
taken upon Himself humanity, to restore us to liberty, so it 
becomes us to restore those men whom nature had made 
free, but the law of nations had made slaves, to their 
natural condition—namely, liberty. The influence of the 


1 Pietatis maxime et religionis intuitus ut captivitatis vinculum 
omnino a Christianis redimatur, etc. | 

> Et quia hominum ingenia, qui non Deum timent, diabolo 
suadente, multa mala excogitant, potest fieri ut qui tales homines 
liberos, necessitate cogente, in servos suscipiunt, etc. (Za. R7s., c. 34.) 

3 Cum Redemptor noster, totius conditor nature . .°. humanam 
carnem voluerit assumere ut . . .  pristinee nos restituerit libertati, 
saiubriter agitur, ut homines . . . libertati reddantur. (Greg. 
Mag. op. Pol., lib. iv.) 


230 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Stoical jurists, as well as of Christianity, in these ideas, is 
worth noting. 

A common mode of manumission was for the master to 
lead the slave with a torch around the altar; he then took 
hold of the horns of the altar, and the earnest words of 
liberation were spoken.. One form, given by Muratori, of 
bestowing freedom, uttered these solemn words: “ For fear 
of Almighty God, and for the cure of my soul, I liberate 
thee, and may the angel of our Lord Jesus Christ deem me 
worthy of a place among His saints.”} 

Another form utters the prayer of the master, that he 
may by this act attain to eternal blessedness and shake off 
the yoke of servitude to his sins.2. A common phrase of 
emancipation is “ pro remedio anime mee,” “for the cure 
of my soul,” while the heirs are warned through their love 
tothe Lord Jesus Christ not to return the slave to bondage. 
Another legal expression is, “I, in the name of God, think- 
ing of the love of God, orseternal) retribution ».7 4 sade 
free this slave from the bonds of servitude.”? Such words 
as pro peccatis minuendis, “for lessening my sins,” or “bond 
and free are one in Christ,” or “forgive, and it shall be for-. 
given,” show the spirit animating the framers of these 
ancient wills. Still another form says, “I, J. N., thinking 
how I can attain to the absolution of my sins, and looking 
to the time when the slave shall be freed from his. master, 
do hereby emancipate my slaves, fifty in number,” etc. 
Others look forward to the Divine tribunal, and would 
show mercy, even as they hope for mercy ; others speak of 
“ Divine compassion inspiring.”* Another form of manu- 

1... absolvo te, Clerisa, pro timore omnipotentis Dei et remedio 
anima, etc. 

2... per quam ad eternam beatitudinam valeat pervenire, etc. 

* Ego, in nomine Dei, cogitans de Dei amore vel eterna retribu- 


tione .. . .ab omni Vinculo servitutis ~ .~-. ‘absolvo. 
4 Ego,in nomine Dei . . . ut quando de hac luce migravero, 


FORMS OF EMANCIPATION. 25t 


mission (Muratori), wherein a countess grants freedom to a 
female slave (1056 A.D.), makes this humane appeal: “ Thus 
we who are formed of the earth, in like manner ought to 
pity our fellow-creatures . . . and whatever hath been 
bequeathed unto us, we ought to make free. 

This historian, who is an impartial observer of the 
Middle Ages, holds that the great moving force in bestow- 
ing freedom is the love implanted by the Christian reli- 
gion.2 ‘ Many charters and epitaphs bore the expression of 
“liberty for the benefit of the soul.” Even as Waterss tite 
thirteenth century, the early feelings in regard to Christian 
emancipation were kept up, and it was the custom in 
France to release caged pigeons on Christian festivals, and 
prisoners were freed “in the name of Christ.” The un- 
wonted respect for humanity was shown in that term used 
in the new rites of manumission, where freedom was called 
ingenuitas, or “nobleness,” as of one free-born.2 One form 
emancipates a slave for the salvation of the soul, so that he 
may henceforth lead a free life, as if he‘had been born 
from free or noble parents. If a slave became priest, and 
his master did not oppose it, or had not reclaimed him for 
a year after his ordination, he was free. One can see how 


anima mea ante Christi tribunal: veniam merear accipere . . « 
libero servos meos—inspirante divina misericordia. 

1 Ita nos qui de terra formati sumus, etc. dwt. Ital., p. 858. 

2 Sed causa frequentior manumittendi miserum hoc hominum 
genus fuit Pietas et Caritas erga Deum, cujus amore plerumque manu- 
missiones celebrate: reperiuntur. p. 875.. Muratort, tid. 

3. . . ne eorum ingenuitas vel nobilitas vilescat. (D7p. Cart. 
Calv., 844 A.D.) 

4 Ieitur ego in Dei nomine et conjux mea, pro remedio anime vel 
retributione eterna, te ex familia nostra, a praesente die, ab omni 
vinculo servitutis absolvimus. Ita ut deinceps, tanquam si ab 
ingenuis parentibus fuisses procreatus vel natus, vitam ingenuam 
ducas. (Form. Sec., LXC. ont. xii.) 


ma 
+ 


232 GESTA. CHRISTI, 


directly this must have acted in lessening the number of 
the slaves. 

Peasants’ Wars.—The condition of the peasants during 
many centuries in Europe forms one of the most melan- 
choly pictures in human annals. They were frequently 
bound to the soil; sometimes they could not bequeath 
any property to their descendants ; the master was allowed 
at their death to appropriate the choicest animal or most 
valuable product of the farm ; they were obliged to sell 
to him at his own prices, or to take certain necessaries 
from him at rates fixed by him; their children were held 
as almost the property of the master, and the odjous adroit 
de seigneur, or its equivalent in money, stamped upon 
their feelings the sense of their degradation. ; 

Even where the person was free, the serf was subject to 
innumerable taxes and burdens ; he must keep his master’s 
buildings in order, do public work on the highways or for 
the baron sometimes for five days in the week; allow 
his fields to be trampled down and his crops wasted by the 
gentry in their hunt for game. Even where he could not 
be sold away from the land, he could be disposed of with — 
the estate, or could be driven off by persecution. His food 
was bad, his dwelling: wretched, his children were without 
education, he was robbed of all things, and lived without 
hope, hating his master and the world’ which thus ground 
him to the dust. 

It may well be believed that the renewal of the Christian 
message in the Protestant Reformation, preaching afresh 
the dignity of the “child of God” and the “joint-heir with 
Christ,” and giving a strange emphasis to the Christian idea 
of human brotherhood, fell upon these masses of wronged 
human beings like an inspiration from on high. The serfs 
saw Clearly that their old religious teachers were imposing 
upon them, and that such an injustice as serfdom could 


PEASANTS’ REVOLTS. 233 


not be reconciled with the teachings of Christ. They 
accepted the reformed doctrines as a new gospel of liberty. 
In different countries they burst out against this oppres- 
sion of ages, and proclaimed freedom in Church and State, 
Unfortunately, most of the chroniclers of the Middle Ages 
have been on the side of the masters, and we know but 
little of the real aims and designs of the much-oppressed 
serfs. ‘They committed great excesses, no doubt, but these 
were the natural reaction against centuries of wrong and 
injustice. The explosion, however, aided in finally re- 
moving the heavy burdens which had so long weighed on 
them. 

In the fifteenth century especially, these outbreaks burst 
forth in Germany. Many associations were formed among 
the peasants to obtain release from their burdens, and these 
all had religious mottoes or devices. One is spoken of on 
the Upper Rhine, which had a banner with a picture of 
Christ crucified, before whom kneeled a serf, with the 
legend's.“ Nothing but God’s justice!” The demands 
made by the Schwabian eee in the insurrection of 
1525 ran somewhat thus :? (1st) “It hath been the custom 
till now to hold us for serfs, which is a pity, seeing that 
Christ hath bought us and redeemed us with His blood is 
and (5th) “It is found in the Holy Writ that we are free, 
SHU Ons an tereeclesire tonbe. free’. 4 > 4) we would have 
God as our Lord, and know our brother in our neighbour. 

We would willingly obey our chosen rulers, but we 
have no doubt that they, as true and good Christians, will 
willingly free us from serfdom, or prove to us from the Gospel 
that we are serfs.” The fourth article claims on religious 


' Zimmerman, p. 153. Der Bauernkrieg. 
* Ibhid., vol. il. pp. 99, 102. See also Bensen’s Geschichte des 
Lauernkrieges, p. 172. 


234 GESTA CHRISTI 


grounds, the use of wild game, and wood from the forests. 
Article sixth protests against the increase of burdens upon 
an oppressed people. It is striking that with the demand 
for freedom from feudal burdens, is included always that 
for a free and elected clergy. In conclusion, say the 
peasants, “If any of these articles are opposed to Holy 
Writ, and this can be proven to us, we will give them 
up. The Peace of Christ be with us all!” The oath of 
the peasants banded in insurrection near Bietigheim, is 
similar in tone: “Because God hath ever enlightened us 
with His word, and hath made known to us how 
utterly we have been despoiled, not of daily bread, 
but of eternal; and because He lendeth us power and 
might according as we firmly believe,” etc. Then follow 
similar demands for a free Gospel and freedom from the 
bonds and burdens of serfdom. The peasants of Elsass 4 
proclaimed that “the Gospel should be preached after its 
true meaning, for it hath been preached for selfishness, and 
great burdens have been laid on the poor peasant ;” they 
demand freedom from tithes, from taxes on woods and 
waters and game, and that serfdom be done away. The. 
peasants on the Neckar,? under the inspiration of the 
free ideas of Christianity, went beyond its teachings, and 
claimed an absolute equality, under the Emperor, of all 
men. “ All worldly lords are to be reformed, so that the 
poor cannot be burthened by them beyond the rules of 
Christian freedom: the same law is to be for the highest 
and lowest.” “Princes and nobles must guard the poor 
and*hold themselves brotherly.” °° . »WAll*citieswand 
parishes are to be reformed in divine and natural rights 
after the principles of Christian freedom.” In England, a 
little before this (1356), a monk, John Balle, had preached 
liberty and equality as principles of the Christian Revela- 


1 Zimmerman. 2 Tbid. 


RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF FREEDOM. 235 


tion. These doctrines, and Wickliffe’s religious influence 
(1360), resulted in a great resistance of the lower classes to 
serfdom and its burdens. The English peasants’ uprisings 
of 1381 proclaimed the entire abolition of villenage ; and 
Richard II. (1380) consented to the doing away of many 
of its vexatious burdens and payments, but these were 
subsequently restored by Parliament. During the century 
and a half after the Peasant Revolt, says’ Green (p. 230), 
“villenage died out so rapidly that it became a rare and 
antiquated. thing.” Stubbs? also notes that the result of 
the rising of 1381 was, that “the landlords gave up the 
practice of demanding base services,” and emancipation 
was greatly advanced. 

We have touched upon these remarkable movements of 
the peasant class in various countries, in the fifteenth and 
sixteenth centuries, because they are so manifestly con- 
nected with the liberalizing influences of the reformed 
preaching of Christianity. They did not, it is true, succeed, 
but they undoubtedly undermined serfdom, and caused 
all classes to be more ready for gradual freedom. They 
show the natural and inevitabfe action of Christ’s teachings 
on men’s minds, where they have long been oppressed by 
injustice. 

Even the highest classes felt this inspiration of freedom 
through the Gospel. The Emperor Sigismund (1436) 
thus proclaims: “It is an unheard-of thing that in the 
holy Christianity one should be so proud as to say to 
a man, Thou art mine!” “For whoever is baptized and 
believeth, be he noble or ignoble, rich or poor, he is 
counted among the members of Christ. Whoever there- 
fore calleth a fellow-Christian his own, he is not. a 


' Inter eos zequa libertas, eadem nobilitas, par dignitas, similisque 
potestas. (Quoted by Suwgemhetn, p. 295.) 
* Constitutional History of England, vol. ii. p. 463. 


236 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Christian, is against Christ, and ali the commandments 
of God are lost on him.”? 

The process of emancipation under the Christian in- 
fluences was often gradual, first from slavery to serfdom, 
and then from a lower to a higher form of serfdom. The 
serfs of the public treasury (fiscalinz) and of the Church 
(ecclestastict) acquired peculiar privileges. The laws for 
bade them to be reduced tothe condition of ordinary serfs ; 
they had a right to their own property ; the fines to pro- 
tect their persons were double those for other serfs, and 
one-half of those for freemen. They could appear in court 
and testify ; while the ordinances of the Councils protected 
them from forced labour and oppression. In Burgundy 
and France, there was a gradual transition in the ninth 
and tenth centuries from serfdom to a condition which was 
intermediate between servitude and freedom. Persons in 
this condition acquired the right to their own property, 
both in land and personal effects; they had the power to 
transmit to descendants, and even to dispose of their estate 
by will, or, leaving no descendants, the State inherited 
from them. They could use their own property to pur- | 
chase their liberty. 

The colonz, as we have said, were a species of serfs 
under Rowhnan law, and they are found through the Middle 
Ages. They were often bound to public labours and to 
forced work for others. Some of the abuses from this 
system extended down even to the eighteenth century in 
the Jura. A colonist could buy and possess land, and 
even slaves, but could only sell real estate with the con- 
sent of the “ Patron” ; and in France he was forbidden to 
give or to sell to another seigneur. He could transmit 
property in direct lines, but in collateral only to brothers 
and sisters and their children. 


1 Zimmerman, p. 107. * 


MANUMISSION. 237 


Gradually through the Middle Ages, there was a tran- 
sition from the state of colonists and mainmortables ! to 
that of tenants and freeholders. Among the serfs, marriage 
was not permitted outside of the domain without the con- 
sent of the master. One of the fruits of religious influence 
on the Roman law was that in a mixed marriage of a 
serf woman and free man, the children did not follow the 
mother, but, by a humane principle, the best condition. 

Up to the eleventh century there were, under religious 
impulses, isolated acts of manumission at death-beds and 
by will. The crusades, both as a grand movement of reli- 
gious enthusiasm, and as breaking up classes of society, 
increased the tendency. It was not uncommon, before 
starting on a crusade, for a noble to free his serfs, as an act 
of conscience towards God; he perhaps going to his death,” 
Many also manumitted in order to raise money for the 
expedition. | | 

In the eleventh century, Emperor Conrad speaks of the 
sale of human beings as a “thing nefarious, and detestable 
to God and men.” # 

In 1096, in France, Philip I. and Louis Le Gros (1108) 
~ 1 Mainmorte (the dead hand). An absolute incapacity to transmit 
property—a condition of serfdom. Thus ancient French ordinances 
say: Comme créature humaine qui est formée a Pimage de nostre 
Seigneur, doic généralment estre franche par droit naturel, . . . 
que les hommes . . . en leur vivant sont reputés ainsi comme 
morts. (Ch. de Val. Ordon. vii. 12.) Seé Du Cange (Janus 
mortua). WWomines manus mortuze sunt servi glebe. 

2 Cod. Theod., iv. 3 c.; Just. xi. 67, 4. It is singular that this 
humane provision, bequeathed by Christianity through the Middle 
Ages, was dropped in the American Law of Slavery. 

3 Ego Jerosolimam profecturum intelligens a viris religiosis, sa- 
pientibus et discretis . . . ne si posteris et successionibus meis 
exemplum hoc rapine et exactionis inique relinquerem . . . Om- 
nino remisi in perpetuum. (Lozs de la ville de Lille.) 

4. | . etiam ut rem Deo hominibusque detestabilem, etc. (Pers, 
xi. 38.) 


238 GESTA CHRISTI. 


gave examples of a more general freeing of slaves. The 
leading nobles and clergy granted municipal charters 
which were charters of emancipation. 

In the fourteenth century, the Count of Valois, brother 
of Philip the Beautiful, freed the serfs of his comté with 
the words: “As the human creature who has been formed 
in the image of our Lord, ought to be free by natural 
right . . . let these men and women be free? sere 
In 1256 Bologna, feeling the influences working through 
European cities, freed all its serfs, paying an indemnity 
to the masters, and decreeing that in the future none but 
freemen should inhabit the city, with the remarkable 
words: “Our Lord God hath established at the origin of 
things, paradise, and hath placed man there, in giving him 
a full and entire liberty. By sin all the human race hath 
been poisoned, that which was immortal becoming mortal, 
liberty perishing in servitude. It is then just and salutary 
that men freed and saved, should be delivered from the 
bonds of servitude in which the abuse of force has en- 
chained them. It is for these reasons that the city of 
Bologna, which has always combated for liberty, re- . 
membering the past, and its eyes fixed on the future, in 
honour of our Saviour Jesus Christ, hath ransomed all the 
serfs on its territory, and decreeth that it would not suffer 
there a man not free.” } 

Many efforts are recorded of St. Louis (1315) to abolish 
mainmorte. 

Slavery is spoken of in French annals up to the twelfth 
century, but no traces appear in the thirteenth, as many of 
the laws prove. , 

The slave trade was common in Europe in the tenth 
century, as is abundantly shown in the papal bulls; there 


 Istorta di Bologna, Girarhacci, quoted by Laurent. (Sugenhein 
and von Raiimer, vol. iii. p. 168.) 


CHRISTIAN EMANCIPATION. 239 


are but few traces of it, however, in the fifteenth and none 
in the seventeenth; the trade was almost entirely in 
heathen captives. In Florence as late as 1526, there was 
a traffic in Mohammedan slaves. The right in France to 
sell Christian slaves was first abolished, and finally the 
whole traffic was done away with. 

In Germany, the code of the thirteenth century, the 
Sachsenspiegel, or “ Mirror,” is full of traces of Christian 
influence against slavery. The Lord is said to have “ put 
peor and rich equally under His own love.” (3, 42.) 
Slavery is declared to have its “origin from unjust cap- 
tivity”; and quoting the Bible, the law affirms! that man 
belongs to God alone, and “whoever holds him as slave, 
sins against the power of the Almighty.” The stranger 
under the heathen code was presumed a serf or slave; 
under this, the presumption was of liberty. “How can 
those,” asks the law, “ who are not permitted to give them- 
selves. to slavery, reduce others to this state? At the 
great jubilee year of the Jews, in memory of the Seventh 
Day and of the Rest of the Lord, did not one give liberty 
to all the Israelites who had become slaves, even to those 
who had not desired to be freed ?” 

The killing of a slave was forbidden in the strictest 
terms,” and the “half-free” were not allowed to hold slaves, 
which was a marked softening of the old codes. 

The abolition of slavery in Scandinavia in the early 
centuries is unquestionably the effect of the Christian 
religion.? One of the first Christian kings of Norway— 
Knut the Holy—at the end of the eleventh century, 


? Ex his verbis colligitur, hominem ad Deum pertinere et qui eum 
occupat, in Omnipotentis peccat potestatis. (Ssf., 3, 42.) 

* Wisse aber dass kein Herr seinen Knecht toedten mag. (Jdcd., 
Riek 2:) 

8 Die Aufhebung der Letbeigenschaft. Sugenheim. 


240 GESTA CHRISTI. 


publicly proclaimed that slavery should be abolished. Ta 
1214, it would appear from the laws! that it had almost 
ceased, and in the fourteenth century are no traces of it 
in Norway or Denmark. In Sweden, the king Magnus 
Eriksen (1335) proclaimed that in honour of the Holy 
Virgin and for the salvation of the soul of his father and 
uncle, no Christian should be held in his kingdom as a 
slave.” Owing to the strong religious feeling against this 
injustice, serfdom did not take deep root in Norway and 
Sweden. This conscientious conviction of the Norse 
people was strengthened by the natural independence of 
a brave race, and the consequent weak hold which the 
feudal system had in those countries. Nearly all the 
peasants owned land, and the nobles did not acquire large 
estates. Serfdom and all its attendant curses were com- 
paratively unknown in that portion of Scandinavia. In 
Denmark, however, owing to the many wars and the 
greater success of the feudal system, considerable numbers 
of the peasants were reduced to this condition. Terrible 
insurrections broke out there in the fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries which only increased the burdens of the un-. 
fortunate serfs. | 

The religious impulse touched one king—Christian IT. 
(1513)—who made himself remembered as the “friend of 
the serf,’ and who forbade, among other things, “the 
wicked and unchristian custom of selling and giving away 
free peasants”: he permitted also the free migration of 
serfs, and ordered that their children be taught various 
trades, and that they should not be oppressed with heavy 
burdens.8 

The Middle Ages, however, did not see the disappear- 
ance of serfdom in that portion of Europe. 


Die Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft, p. 542. 
2 101d... 0542, 3 Lbid., p. 508. 


ENGLISH SERFDOM. 241 


English Slavery and Serfdom—\n England, as upon the 
Continent, slavery arose from various causes ; from birth, 
from captivity in war, as a punishment by the authorities, 
as a penalty in gambling where a man staked himself, 
and by marriage. By the Ripuarian Law, a free woman 
marrying a slave became a slave; by the Anglo-Saxon 
law, under the Christian teaching, the offspring of the free 
and slave followed the condition of the father,! instead of 
the mother, as according to the Roman law. 

Residence also often brought about slavery. Die Luft 
macht etgen (“The air makes the thrall”), says some old 
German proverb. If runaways were found living on 
strange properties, they could be enslaved. The blood- 
money, or qwergeld, sometimes included bondage, and many 
debtors became slaves. Thousands of Britons, in times of 
famine, during the first century after the Norman Conquest, 
sold themselves into thraldom. Children were even sold 
by their parents to escape extreme poverty. “If a Chris- 
tian,” says Theodosius in his Penitentials, “sell another into 
a foreign country, he will not be worthy to have repose in 
the midst of the faithful until he has restored to liberty 
and country him whom he sold.? If a Christian has found 
another Christian wandering and vagabond, whom he has 
seized fraudulently and sold as slave, he ought to sit no 
more in the assembly of the faithful, until he. hath repaired 
his fault and submitted to a penitence of seven years.” 
“A father,” says another passage of the Penitentials, 
“driven by necessity hath the power of delivering into 
servitude a son, if -he be under eight years; after that he 
hath no power, except by the will of the son.’3 When a 


Bde AXXVU 12. 
met heoe Len, 53.13; 
* Pater filium servum VII. annorum, necessitate compulsus, potes- 


R 


242 GESTA “GHARISTS 


youth had passed the age of thirteen, he had the power 
of selling himself as a slave.! 

In Scotland there was the same privilege. “ Ilk frey- 
man may leff his fredome gif him like is.” 

The later law in England required certain conditions: 
among them, that the sale should be made by other than 
the man himself.” 

“Though any one sell his daughter to servitude,” says 
an old English law, “let her not be altogether such a 
theow as other female slaves. He ought not to sell her 
among a strange folk.” ° | 

That feature of slavery, lower than anything “brutal,’— 
the raising children for the slave market,—was not unknown 
in England. It is alluded to frequently by the historians,* 
and was preached against with righteous indignation by 
the clergy. Bristol was the great slave market, and there 
might be seen long trains of British youths and maidens— 
the latter often ruined for the sake of selling their off-spring 
—all to be sold either to Ireland or to foreign countries. 
Bishop Wulfstan® of Worcester (about 1086 A.D.) was 
in the practice of coming to this city every year and 
spending several months in preaching the gospel against 
this iniquity. The hardened Northumbrians at length 
were deeply impressed by these truths, and finally in 
solemn assembly vowed not only to give up this sinful 


tatem habet tradere in servitutem: deinde sine voluntate filii, 
licentiam tradendi non habet. (Zheod. Pen., xix. 28.) 

re O7ay, 020. 

27, . . quwil est vray que Phomme franc et. sub jure se peut 
vendre ... . La premiere qu’il se fera vendre par autre, que par lui, 
elon COG Ge) ST CE AAI BA 

4 Tllud erat a natura abhorens, quod multi ancillas suas ex se 
gravidas, ubi libidinem satis fecissent, aut ad eternum obsequium 
vendicabant. (J7/2//. Afatus. 57.) 

5 Beda (Ecc. Hist.) makes this name Wulstan, 


SLAVES IN ENGLAND. 243 


practice, but to induce all England to renounce it. The 
resolve made a deep impression throughout the country.! 

One authority says that from Aethelwulf to William the 
Conqueror, for 230 years, a great part of the English 
peasantry became reduced to slavery. After Malcolm’s 
invasion of England (1061 A.D.), so many young men and 
maidens were carried away as slaves to Scotland, that it 
was said not a village or a house could be found with- 
out them.?, When Canterbury was burned by the Danes 
in I006 A.D., all the 8,000 inhabitants were killed ex- 
cepting “four mass priests” and eighty lower monks; 
these were severely whipped and, if they could not re- 
deem themselves, were carried off into perpetual slavery. 

By the Domesday Book (1068-71 A.D.) the number of 
male slaves for Sussex is given as 9,200, which would 
make the whole number about 50,000, while the free in- 
habitants of the county were only 38,000. In the whole of 
England enumerated, there appear to have been reckoned 
25,000 servz or slaves; 82,000 dordarit, and 7,000 cotariz 
(different kinds of serfs), and 110,000 villeins.® 

Among the evidences of the deep root of English 
Siavety is the statement of Strabo,* that slaves: area 
British export; and the historical statement that the 
sister of Canute and first wife of Godwin, derived a large 
income from selling English slaves to Denmark. 


1, . . ancillasque prius ludibrio lecti habitas, jamque preegnantes 
venum proponebant. . . . Hunc tam igvetaratum morem . 
Wulfstanus paulatim delevit . . . divine pradicationis semina 
spargens. Que adeo per inter alia temporum apud eos convoluere. 
ut non solum renuntiarent vitio, sed ad idem faciendum ceteris per 
Angliam essent exemplo. (2 Aug. Sac., 258.) 

2. . . repleta est Scotia servis et ancillis Anglici generis, etc. 
(Fra. Dom., 1070 A.D.) 

3 Villani dicuntur . . . qui v//e@ seu glebe adscripti sunt. 

id Bley, bi Cove 


244 GESTA GCHRISTI 


There is proof that slaves were branded, and even yoked 
- as cattle. 

If a master killed his slave without knowledge of the 
judge, the Church punished him, where the civil law could 
not, with excommunication or with a penance of two 
years.! The Church, too, sentenced a mistress who should 
beat her maid-servant with such violence that she died, to 
seven years’ penance; if the death was accidental, the 
penance was for five years. According toa law.of King 
Edward, whoever killed a slave man must fast three years. 
The killing a slave was recognised in the law and by the 
Church as a sin.” | 

It can only be repeated that the gradual working of 
Christianity had its usual effect on slavery and serfdom in 
England. The prohibition, on religious grounds, against 
selling Christian slaves to heathen countries, runs all 
through Anglo-Saxon law, and is repeated by William the 
Conqueror and other Norman kings.? The provision in 
Alfred’s laws (taken from the Bible) that a Christian bonds- 
man could only be held seven years, must have tended 
gradually to free all slaves. Alfred’s feelings in regard to 
slavery are shown in his final will, and they only indicate 
the religious sentiments of the day. ‘And I beseech in 
God’s name and His saints, that none of my relatives do 
obstruct none of the freedom of those I have redeemed. 
And for me the West Saxon nobles have pronounced as 
lawful, that I may leave them free or bond, whether I will. 
But I, for God’s love and my soul’s health, will that they 
be masters of their freedom and of their will; and I, in the 


Ril eee cO0 th Nt. 214.02. 

* Qui servum suum occiderit, suum peccatum est et damnum 
(475 Conc.). 

* Cavendum enim valde est ne anime in dampnacionem vendantur, 
pro quibus Christus vitam impendit. (4 Gud. V,, xli.) 


CHRISTIAN VBROLAERAOOD.: 245 


living God’s name, entreat that no man do not disturb 
them, neither by money exaction, nor by no manner of 
means,” etc. 1 | , 

When Edward the Confessor (974 A.D.) utters such 
expressions in regard to human-equality as the following, 
we may be sure that the idea of Christian brotherhood is 
beginning to penetrate barbaric society. “We know,” 
says the pious king, “that through God’s grace a thrall has | 
become a thane, and a churl has become an earl (or squire), 
a singer a priest, and a scribe a bishop; and formerly, as 
oa dccreed, a-fisher became. a bishop, etc! )2\3.% 4. We 
have all one heavenly Father and one spiritual mother, 
which is called Ecclesia, that is, God’s Church, and there- 
fore are we brothers.” 

A law of Wihtraed encouraged manumission, by making 
it when performed at the altar absolute (No. 9). William 
the Conqueror gives a form of liberation, and enacts that 
if slaves remain a year and a day without calumny in the 
royal cities or burghs, walled towns or camps, they should 
be free for ever. 

Stil, under English law, the slave was a thing; one of 
the catalla, a chattel. The Christian sentiment, as we have 
said, first felt the iniquity of selling one “baught by the 
blood of Jesus Christ” ; and later, of possessing him as a 
bond-servant. 

The slaves, as we have already shown, were protected in 
England on Sundays and feast-days. Masters who com- 
pelled them to work on those days lost their property 
in them. Under Aethelred they were confiscated to the 
treasury ; under Canute, emancipated. The slaves were 
permitted to work for themselves for twelve days at Christ- 
mas, in the week before and after Easter, and during the 
week before Assumption, and could thus earn money to free 


1 Hughes’ Life of Alfred. 


246 GLO Lap CL NIST 1. 


themselves, “The slaves shall be freed,” say the Brehon 
laws} “the plebeians be exalted by the orders of the 
Church, and by performing penitential service to God.” 
St. Aidan, a bishop of Northumbria, is said to have ran- 
somed slaves, instructed them, and then ordained them as 
priests? The synod of Celchyth (816 A.D.) ~proclaimed 
that, at the death of a certain bishop, all who had been his 
slaves during life should be freed ; and that every bishop 
throughout England should grant freedom to three men, 
giving each three shillings for masses for the deceased 
bishop’s soul.® 

Bishop Wilfred having received an estate with two 
hundred and fifty Christian slaves, emancipated them with 
the words, “All those whom baptism hath rescued from the 
service of the devil, become by that worthy of the liberty 
which changeth them from servants to men.” 4 

Among the steps towards gradual emancipation in 
England, may be mentioned, the punishment of excom- 
munication, threatened by Ecgberth of York, for any 
sale of a child or kinsfolk ; slave-murder by the master 
became a sin before the Church, though not always a 
capital crime before the law.® The slave was often attached | 
to the land and could only be sold with it; he sometimes 
acquired land and bought his emancipation. 

One of the protective features of the Anglo-Saxon law, 
the mutual responsibility of the citizens, was extended to 
slaves as to free men, under A‘thelstan. (924 A.D.) 

A female slave who was led into sin by the master, 


1 Bridgett, 1, 250. 

PRUCZA ST L..5. 

® Landon’s Manual of Councils. Celchyth, Haddan & Stubbs, 
Councils. Bridgett’s Hist. of Holy Eucharist. , 

aU Deuasuseretc TV! 3; 

Si. GTeen. 


EMANCIPATION. OF SLAVES. 247 


became free ;! a provision which especially protected the 
helpless, he was due to the influence of the religious 
principle. Slaves were set free on the Church-porch or 
before the altar, and the Gospel-book bore on the margin 
a record of emancipation, Sometimes the master placed 
the slave at a point where four roads met, and bade him 
go whither he would. In a more solemn form the master 
took him by the hand? in the full assembly, showed him 
open road and door, and gave him the lance and sword of 
a freeman. 

Before Alfred, slaves could own nothing; under his 
legislation, they were permitted to dispose by will of what 
was given them, or what they could earn in their free 
hours. He forbids also any masters who have incurred a 
fine or amend, from buying off by the sale of man as well 
as beast. 

The seven years’ jubilee, sche from the Jewish system, 
must have gradually destroyed slavery in England. Slaves, 
too, were more and more permitted to ransom themselves. 
Under Canute, when a slave had fallen in the presence of 
his master on a military expedition, his equipment and 
possessions could be divided among his heirs? The slave 
as soldier became thus a vassal. 

A slave, even as far back as Wihtreed, if freed was 
obliged to leave his property with his master for blood- 
money (wergeld), so that he was thus transferred into a 
kind of serf. So a slave freed by the violence of his master, 
did not at once enjoy all the rights of a freeman, but was 
a client of the sheriff (gerefa). 

Slave-birth prevents any one from appearing in court as 


WP eH. 0) Sia Heod aii A. 
2 Green, and Leg. Gul. 
S27 Cains: 


248 GLhSTA SCH RLS 


witness. To be free, the bondman needed not merely the 
will of the master, but also certain public ceremonials, 

Emancipation became more and more the Christian 
work far excellence ; it was performed at death-beds and 
in wills, pro remedio anime, for the salvation of the soul ; 
the ceremony was consecrated by the Church and the 
priest ; and the written proof was preserved in the Church 
records, 

The forms of manumission show the spirit which worked 
towards liberty, “ Geatfled hath freed, for God’s love, and 
for her soul's sake, E. the smith, and A. his wife, and all 
their offspring, born and unborn, and A. and C, and all the 
men who bent their heads in the evil days. Whoso shall 
set this aside and deprive her soul of this, may God 
Almighty deprive him both of this life and of the kingdom 
of heaven, and be he accursed, quick or dead, for ever and 
eVverane 

Another form has: “And we make all the serfs free 
for both our souls’ sake.” 2 

As late as 1535, we find an act of manumission te- 
peating the familiar expression of the Stoical jurists, 
modified by Christianity, in regard to slavery. “Whereas 
at the beginning, nature brought forth all men free, and 
afterwards the law of nations placed certain of them under 
the yoke of servitude, we believe that it is pious and meri- 
torious towards God to manumit them and restore them 
to the benefit of pristine liberty,’ and then the author 
(Bishop Sherborne of Chichester) liberates a serf: 

The slave-trade was forbidden from English ports by 
law, but legislation did not check the inhuman traffic. 
One hundred years aftef Dunstan (946 A.D.) the nobles 


+. «© « ewic aaonecnysse. (Cod Dip., No. 925.) 
3. . . forunker bother soule. (/éid. 979.) 


SLAVES AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST: ‘249 


still acquired wealth from the breeding of slaves.) Under 
William the Conqueror, the influence of the religion of 
mercy at length secured the passage of a law forbidding 
the slave-trade, whose principal port and centre was 
Bristol.? 

After the Norman conquest, the condition of the slaves 
did not for a time improve, as the hew conquerors were 
understood to own the chattels of the native Saxons; 
and did not at first permit the bondmen to buy themselves 
into freedom. Henry II. enlarged the laws of emancipa- 
tion. He recognised blood-money fora slave, with a dif- 
ferent amend for different classes of slaves. The master’s 
power over the life of his bondman is limited; if he kill 
him, he must pay blood-money to the relatives of the 
servant; the reason in the law being one of those an- 
tithetical passages of which our ancestors are so fond 
‘“Dbecause a slave is a servant for serving, not for killing.” 4 

By an act of the same king, no born slave was admitted 
to holy orders, unless manumitted:° a provision which 
must have had a compound influence on both the Church 
and slavery, in ciminishing bondage. 

The Church councils thundered against the slave trade 
in Christians. One called in London (1102), by Anselm, 
forbade absolutely that nefarious business of selling human 
beings like brute beasts ;® and another meeting at Armagh, 
Ireland (1171), declared all English Christian slaves free. 


1 Green. 
=) MEE sees a CF 
3 Quia omnia catalla cujuslibet nativi intelliguntur esse in potestate 
domini sul. (Glanville, 5, 5.) 
4 Quia servus ad serviendum, non alfgoccidendum servus erat. (4., 
1,75.) 
Bop ees7 sale MEX Vili. AL) 
® Nequis illud nefarium negotium quo hactenus in Anglia solebant 
homines, sicut bruta animalia, venundari, deinceps ulla tenus praesumat. 


250 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Another decreed that no English thralls who had been 
freed should be re-enslaved.! 

It is remarkable, that no one can say precisely when 
slavery was merged into serfdom in England, or when 
serfdom disappeared. 

In the reigns of Henry III. and edward I.,some masters 
transformed their serfs into frecholders; but 7 the serf did 
not do his service as vassal, the master could confiscate 
his land ; if he performed this service, however, the master 
had no power. 

There is no evidence of a transference of the persons of 
villeins in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They 
were only obliged to pay for a marriage licence, and were 
not permitted to select their calling. 

A petition was presented to Parliament in the reign of 
Richard II. that villeins should not be permitted to send 
their children to school in order to advance them in the 
Church, which shows that many were then rising out of 
their condition into that of freemen by becoming priests. 

There were many influences throughout England gradu- 
ally raising up the serf; but the most powerful was the slow _ 
action of religious motives on the conscience of the masters. 
The selling one “for whom Christ died,’—that is, a 
Christian,—was felt from the earliest ages to be a great in- 
consistency and offence. Gradually the holding such a 
person in bondage was seen to be equally against the 
teachings of the Master; and finally, the laying unjust 
burdens on fellow-Christians was perceived to be contrary 
to the Gospel. This sense of justice worked silently and 
gradually through English as well as European society in 
the Middle Ages, and continually lightened serfdom by 
reforms not necessary to be related here, until at length it 


1. , , in pristinam revocentur libertatem. (Concel. Lond. Girald. 
Camér.) 


MOTIVES FOR EMANCIPATION. 252 


disappeared as snow melts before the spring sun, no one 
being able to say precisely when winter ceased or the new 
season began. 

A trustworthy testimony as to the motives leading to 
emancipation in England, is given by Sir Thomas Smith, a 
statesman in the time of Elizabeth, who wrote his “ Common- 
wealth of England” + at the close of the sixteenth century 
(about 1570). He argues without any partiality towards 
the Church, though with a full sense of the value of religion ; 
and states? that already in his time slaves were unknown 
in England, and of serfs only a few survived, but that both 
conditions were recognised in English law. Of the causes 
working towards freedom, he says: “I think both in 
France and England the change of religion to the more 
gentle and more equal sort (as the Christian religion is in 
respect to the Gentiles) caused this whole kind of servile 
servitude and slavery to be brought into that moderation 

/2sothat they almost:extinguishedithe wholes. %, ©. 
This persuasion I say of Christians, not to make nor keep 
his brother in Christ, servile, bond and underling for ever 
MiGer im, ao.a beast. rather. than, as. a man, and. the 
humanities which the Christian religion doeth teach, hath 
engendered through Realmes (not near to Turks and bar- 
barians) a doubt, a conscience and scruple to have servants 
and bondmen; yet necessitie on both sides, on the one to 
have helpe, on the other to have service, hath kept a figure 
or fashion thereof” (pp. 130, 131). And again: ‘“ Howbeit 
since our Realme hath received the Christian religion which 
maketh us all in Christ, breathren, and in respect of God 
and Christ, conservos, then began men to have conscience 
to hold in captivitie and such extreme bondage, him whom 
they must acknowledge to be his brother, and, as we use to 


1 The Commonwealth of England, by Sir Thomas Smith, 1589. 
#521129. 


252 GESTACHRISLL 


term him, Christian ; that is, to have equall portion with 
them in the gospel and salvation.” And then with a sly 
hit at the Church: “Upon this sample, in continuance of 
time, and by long succession, the holy Fathers, munkes and 
fryers in their confession, and specially in their extreme 
and deadly sicknesses, burdened the consciences of them 
whom they had under their hands ; so that temporall men, 
by little and little, by reason of that terror in their con- 
science, were glad to manumit all their villaines; but the 
same holy Fathers, with the abbots and friars, did not in 
like sort by theirs, for they had also conscience to im- 
poverish and dispoyle the Church so much, as to manumit 
such as were bound to their Churches, or to their mannors, 
which the Church had gotten, and so kept theirs still” 
Potro Dal 2O)t 

In 1391 serfs still appear in England; but before the 
middle of that century the majority had become hired 
labourers. There were acts of enfranchisement in the 
reigns of Mary and Elizabeth. The act of the latter 
emancipating serfs in 1574 on certain manors was one of 
the last? 

Even in 1610 James I. appears to have possessed rights 
over serfs ; and serfdom was not finally swept away till 
the reign of Charles II. 

In Scotland the arbitrary rights of serfdom over the 
labourers in the salt works endured till the middle of the 
eighteenth century. 


* See also on villenage, Mirror of Fustices, c. 11. p. 209. (Trans. by 
HO Pi E7003) 

2’ Ougen Elizabeth is reported to have commissioned Lord Burleigh 
and Sir W. Mildmay to inquire into the condition of the villeins on 
her domains in Cornwall, Devonshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire, 
and make such as were hort bond compound for their freedom. (Dv. 
Truster, quoted in Bell’s Feudalism, p. 259.) 


(1s IAB Bh i A GE 
CHIVALRY. 


HE phenomenon of chivalry is one of the most singular 
in history. As an ideal of character and life it is 
quite distinct from any classic ideals, and not entirely 
corresponding either to the German or Christian concep- 
tion. It may be said that the world of the Middle Ages 
was peculiarly false to its chivalric ideal. But the same 
may be said of the relations of the classic world to the 
Stoic standard, or of the Christian world to its model. 
Still, for some centuries—from certainly the eleventh to the 
fourteenth—the chivalric ideal was that of the great body 
of martial young men of the higher classes of Europe, 
and exerted a very manifest influence on manners and 
morals. It softened the cruelty of war in a barbarous 
age, led the popular mind away from material ends to 
certain ideas, sometimes whimsical, but more often generous 
and noble; it strengthened the position and power of 
woman, cultivated some of the purest virtues, and formed 
a conception of character which has come down into 
modern society, and influenced countries where feudalism 
was never known. 
To determine the part which Christianity had in chivalry, 
we must examine the customs and received ideals of the 
latter, 


The initiation of the knight was essentially religious in 
253 


254 Cle APC his] 1a. 


form ; but the outward ceremony seems to have descended 
from the ancient Germans. Tacitus tells us that the young 
German who aspired to be a warrior, was brought into the 
midst of the assembly of the chiefs, where his father, or 
a relative, solemnly equipped the youth for his future 
vocation, with shield and javelin. The act was looked 
upon as a rite of religious solemnity. So chivalry taught 
that the youthful knight was to enter on his calling 
under religious ceremonies. He was first divested of his 
clothes and put into the bath as an emblem of purification ; 
then a white robe, symbol of purity, was wrapped around 
him; next a red robe, symbol of the blood which he 
should shed for the Faith, and of the blood shed for him : 
and finally a black garment was worn, to remind of the 
death which would be always near him. He was then 
to fast twenty-four hours, and in the evening to enter the 
Church and pass the night in solitary prayer, or sometimes 
in company with his godfathers. The next day his first 
act was to be confession ; after this, he was present at mass 
and listened to a solemn sermon on the duties of knight- 
hood ; finally, he kneeled before the altar, his sword was 
blessed by the priest, and he made solemnly his knightly 
oaths. Among these was one that “ Avarice, recompense, 
gain, or profit should never oblige the knight to any action, 
but only glory and virtue.” Another, that he would “never 
fight with more than one against one, and to avoid all 
fraud and deceit.” Another bound him “to conduct a lady 
or maiden whom he might meet in danger, to asafe retreat, 
to serve her, protect her, and save her from all danger and 
all insult, or die in the attempt; to never do violence to 
ladies or maidens without their will and consent, although 
they had been won by arms. 

A more formal statement of the knight’s oaths is the 

* Guizot, Hest. of Civ., vol. iii, p. 11. 


OA LH SA OPE CHIVALRY. 255 


following :—1. I shall fortify and defend the Christian. 
religion to the uttermost of my power. 2. I shall be loyal 
and true to my sovereign lord the king, to all orders of 
chivalry, and to the noble office of arms. 3. I shall fortify 
and defend justice with all my power, and that without 
favour or vanity. 6. I shall defend the just action and 
quarrel of all ladies of honour, of all true and friendless 
widows, of orphans of good fame. 7. I shall do diligence 
wheresoever I hear that there are any murderers, traitors, 
or masterful robbers who oppress the king’s lieges and 
poor people, to bring them to the law with all my power.! 

An old French ballad,? quoted by Saint Palaye, says: 
“You who desire the order of knighthood, you must lead a 
new life; devoutly watch and pray, shun sin, pride and 
villainy, the Church you must defend, the widow's cause 
and the orphan’s undertake, be hardy and loyal, and 
plunder nothing from others—thus must the knight guide 
himself.” 

The mother of the celebrated knight, Bayard, is said to 
have uttered these words when he received his sword: 
“ Serve God and He will aid thee; be sweet and courteous 
to every gentleman in divesting thyself of all pride. Be 
not a flatterer or talebearer, for this kind of people come 
not to great perfection; be loyal in word and in deed ; 
keep thy word, be helpful to the poor and orphan, and 
God will reward it to thee.” The young aspirant for 
knighthood was not uncommonly trained to serve in some 


1 Selden, quoted by Mill, Hest. of Chivalry, p. 153. 
2 Vous qui voulez l’crdre de chevalier 
Il vous convient mener nouvelle vie ; 
Devotement en oraison veiller, 
Peché fuir, orgueil et villenie, etc. 
3 Servez Dieu et il vous aidera; soyez doux et courtois 4 tout 
gentilhomme en dtant de vous tout orgueil; ne soyez flatteur ni rap- 
porteur. 


256 (Lb ECL Sells 


noble family, and was thus early taught one of the virtues 
of chivalry—a dignified obedience, and a subordination 
to elders and superiors, which had no mixture of obse- 
quiousness, | 

The Helden-Buch, an eld authority on Chivalry, says of 
the duties of knighthood :— 


“The Princes young were taught to protect all ladies fair, 

Priests they bade them honour and to the mass repair ; 

All holy Christian love were they taught, I plight ; 

Hughdietrich and his noble queen, caused priests to guide them 

aright.” } 

The ideal of knighthood is thus given in an old chroni- 
cle, translated by Bullfinch : “Then King Arthur stablished 
all his knights and to them that were not rich he gave 
lands and charged them all never to do outrage or murder 
and always to flee treason; also by no means to be cruel, 
but to give mercy unto them that ask mercy, Upon pain 
of forfeiture of their worship and lordship; and always to 
do ladies, damosels and gentlewomen service, upon pain 
of death; also that no man take battle in a wrongful 
quarrel for no law or any world’s goods. Under this 
were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both old 
and young; and at every year were they sworn at the 
high feast of Pentecost.” 

The Church itself strove in every way to confirm these 
ideas. Thus the Council of Clement made solemn 
declaration that every noble person should, at the age of 
twelve, take solemn oath before the bishop to defend to 
the uttermost widows and orphans; that women of noble 
birth, both single and married, should enjoy his special 
care, and that nothing should be wanting in him to render 
travelling safe, and to overthrow tyranny. 

1 Quoted by AZL7Z/s, p, 224. 
a7 LOsae Daz lc, 


LESSONS OF CHIVALRY. 2o7. 


The translator of St. Palaye’s “Memoirs of Ancient 
Chivalry,” says eloquently : “Women in particular, ought 
to hold these ancient writers on chivalry in high esteem, 
for the deference they paid to modesty and the same they 
so liberally bestowed on virtue. They taught generous 
firmness, judicious observance of superiors and constant 
love to unite in the same hearts, They taught to honour 
the valiant, to attend the wounded, to relieve. the’ dis- 
tressed and to dispense the sweet solace of cheerful and 
gentle manners to all around them; they taught them 
to respect themselves and to prefer others; to be silent, 
observant, and industrious in youth, graceful and dignified 
in maturity, venerable in age and lamented in death.” 
Foulque, a young knight, is thus described by St. Palaye!: 
“He is eager to expand his heart and to diffuse his wealth 
to all who approach him and ever without partiality or 
limitation to all the world, the declared enemy of injustice 
and of all who dare to be its patrons. The being unable 
to redress wrong is his sole cause of grief; if this ever 
happens, he is inconsolable. He is taught * that simplicity 
and modesty alone gave a lustre to victory and he has 
been directed from a child to be the last who should speak 
high things and the first who should do them, to be mild 
among the aged and stout among the brave, and that he 
can never praise himself too little or others too much.” 
Spenser gives us the same ideal in his “Red Cross 
Knight ”: 


“ And many hard adventures did achieve 
Of all the which they honer wonne, 
Seeking the weak oppressed to relieve, 
And to recover right for such as wrong did grieve.” 3 


naa eam ae 
It. Lalaye, p. 67, SOG OS Mae § 
3 Fatry Queen, iii. 1-3, 
iS} 


258 GESTA, CHRISTI. 


An old French ballad says :— 


“ A true knight the people must defend 
And his héart’s blood for the Faith expend.”! 


Chaucer also thus pictures the knight— 


“A knight there was and that a worthy man 
That from the time he first began 
To riden out, he loved chivalry 


Truth and honour, freedom and courtesy. 
af * * 


And tho’ that he was worthy, he was wise, 
And of his port as meek as is a maid, 

He never yet no villainy ne said, 

In all his life unto no manner wight ; 

He was a very gentle perfect knight.” ? 


One of the first virtues taught the knight, which has 
greatly influenced modern warfare, was pity for his enemy. 
It was a common phrase, that “a warrior without pity 
was without worship.” “In all the wars of chivalry,” says 
the historian’ of Brittany, “true soldiers never injure the 
tillers of the ground.” ; 

The celebrated knight, Du Quesclin, is reported to have 
said on his death-bed to his companions in arms: “ Neither 
the clergy nor women nor children are your enemies.” 

Chevalier Bayard, being told that it was permitted to 
live in an enemy’s country upon the inhabitants, replied: 
“Tt is true, but I think we ought not to do all that is 
permitted ; the right of war is one thing, the right of 
justice another. I rebuke not what others do, but I will 
not do it myself.” 4 . 

The courtesy and pity of the knight evidently entered 


1 Ils doivent le peuple defendre 
It la sange pour la foi espandre. 
2 Prologue, Canterbury Tales. 3 Argentre. 
4 St. Palaye, p. 196. 


COUKLES WORE CHIVALRY. 259 


into practical affairs and became characteristics of warfare 
in certain countries. “King Edward,” says Froissart, after 
the battle near Calais (1346), “sat down to supper and 
made the captive French knights sit down also, greeted 
them honourably and ordered them to be served with the 
first course, while the gentle Prince of Wales and the 
knights of England were served with the second course 
at another table.” To the knight who had nearly killed 
him, King Edward said: “I have never found in battle 
any man who man to man hath given me so much trouble 
as thou hast done, I therefore give thee the prize by a 
just decision above all the knights of my court.” The 
courtesy of the Prince of Wales to the French King John 
as prisoner after the battle of Poictiers is too well known 
to need recounting. The English prince constantly re- 
fused to sit down at the table of his captive, and gave him 
the highest honours, 

“Can it be conceived possible,” says Froissart, “that in 
a hot fire of the squadrons of the French and English met 
near Cherbourg (1379), the knights and squires having 
dismounted to fight closer, stopped in the midst of these 
furious transports to give one among them who remained 
on horseback the leisure to challenge that knight among 
his enemies whom he esteemed to excel the most in love.” 
This historian relates again that after a battle between the 
French and English, in 1344, “the English dealt like good 
comrades with their prisoners, and suffered many to depart 
on their oaths and promises to return again on a fixed 
day to Bordeaux.”* After the battle at Otterbourne, the 
Scots are said to have set their English prisoners to 
ransom, and every man said to his prisoner: “Sir, go and 
unarm yourself and take your ease,” and so made their 


1 Froissart, i. 107. 


260 CHS La CLINI Ee 


prisoners good checr as if they had been brethren, without 
doing them any injury.!. The chivalric custom of ransom 
undoubtedly mitigated to a great degree the horrors of 
war in the Middle Ages. The knights were punctilious to 
the last degree in keeping the pledges made to their 
captors. Thus the Duke of Gueldres is said to have 
been captured by a squire of low degree and carried to 
his stronghold. The forces of the duke approaching, 
the squire made him promise that he would come to him 
wherever he might be on a fixed day and remain his 
prisoner till ransom was paid. The duke was imme- 
diately liberated by his comrades, but held himself bound 
by his pledge, and after months of delay and against 
many remonstrances, penetrated the enemy’s lines and 
delivered himself to his captor, from whom he was subse- 
quently ransomed. As an instance of knightly manners, 
the romance of Farumbras relates that the famous knight 
Oliver, in a battle with the Saracen cavalier Farumbras, 
assisted his foe to lace his helmet, and before they fought, 
both bowed politely to one another. 

Such an action as the following, related of the wars of. 
Robert Bruce, shows what a humanizing reality chivalry 
might be :— 


“ The king has heard a woman cry: 
He asked what that was in hy (haste) 
It is the layndar (laundress) sir, said one, 
That her child-ill (bed) right now has taen, 
And must leave now behind us here, 
Therefore she makes an evil cheer. 
The king said, Certes it were pity 
That she in that point left should be, 
For, certes, I trow there is no man 
That he no will rue a woman than. 


se a 
1 Frotssart, ii. 108. 


HUMANE COR. CHIVALRY, 261 


His hosts all then arrested he 

And gert a tent soon stinted (pitched) be 
And gert her gang in hastilie 

And other women to be her by 

While she was delivered, he bade, 

And syne forth on his way’s rade ; 

And how she forth should carried be, 
Or he forth fare (journeyed) ordained he 3 
This was a full great courtesie 

That swilk a king and so mightie 

Gert his men dwell on this manner 
But.for a poor lavender.” ! 


Writing of knightly courtesy, Froissart says, “there 
is no pause between them (the English and Scotch) as 
long as spears, swords, axes, or daggers will endure. When 
one party hath obtained the victory, they then could 
elorify in their deeds of arms, and are so joyful that such 
as are taken, are ransomed ere they go out of the field, so 
that shortly each of them is so content with the other, that 
at their departing, they will say courteously, God thank 
you!” * That incident of Sir Philip Sidney, the chevalier 
of more modern days, refusing the cup of cold water when 
dying that he might give it to a wounded soldier, will 
probably never depart out of human memory. It shows 
what Christianity can do, acting on the traditional habits 
of the gentleman and soldier. 

The chivalric ideal forbade all violence to the prisoner. 
An Italian writer of eminence even blames the soldier 
who struck the tyrant of Padua, “since it is as vile an act 
to wound a prisoner whether noble or otherwise, as to 
Strike.a dead body.” * 


1 The Bruce, x. 1, 270. This’ humane incident is said to have 
occurred in Robert Bruce’s campaign in Ireland, in 1319. 

2 Frroissart, i. 142. 

3. . . quam gladio cadere cadaver. (Rolanderius.) Quoted by 
Hallam. 


262 GESTA CHRISTI, 


The model of the knight was that of exceeding gentle- 
ness. Arthur is described as replete with all grace and 
virtue, “for he is free; meek and gentle as a lamb.” ! 

A common motto of a noble family in France was “the 
braver the milder” (quo fortior eo mitior). 

When the chronicles picture a knight wandering in a 
wilderness and asking his way of some cowherd, they 
describe him as riding away “while commending the lad 
to God.” When King Arthur met some unknown ladies 
in the forest, the biographers relate that “as soon as he saw 
them, he lyghted downe of his hors and ryght sweetly 
saluted them.” 

Of Rodrigo it is said that,— 

* Journeying on he greeted whom he met 

With such short interchange of courtesie 

As each to other gentle traveller gives.” 
Hospitality was equally a duty with courtesy. “Then it 
was, says Perceforest, ‘‘that in Great Britain charity of 
manners reigned in all; noble dames and gentle knights 
placed on the tops of their castles a helmet, as a sign that 
all good knights and worthy ladies travelling that way: 
should enter as freely into their castle as if it were their 
own.” Handsome presents were given to the guests, “ but 
the courtesy they learned in those castles was above all 
riches ; no spirit of discord or peevishness was ever allowed 
in these knights to one another. Their manners displayed 
every kind of friendship and goodwill.” ? “Nothing was 
small or despicable in the eyes of a knight, if it compre- 
hended the welfare of an individual; if he in his voyage 
or expedition received the hospitality of the meanest 
person, gratitude would never suffer him to consider that 
person but as a noble and generous benefactor; he declared 
himself for ever his knight, and swore to renounce all the 


1 Quoted by Digby. * St. Palaye, p. 282. 


IDEA LSIOHC LV ALY: 263 


elory that could be proposed to him, to acquit himself of 
the debt to defend, protect, and succour him in time of 
need?! 

The following passage shows the Norman ideal of 
chivalry in the twelfth century. Geoffrey says of the reign 
of King Arthur: “ Britain had arrived at such a pitch of 
erandeur that in abundance of riches, luxury of ornaments, 
and politeness of inhabitants, it far surpassed all other 
kingdoms. The knights in it that were famous for chivalry, 
wore their clothes and arms all of the same colour and 
fashion ; and the women also, no less celebrated for their 
wit, wore all the same kind of apparel, and counted none 
worthy of their love but such as had given proof of their 
valour in three successive battles. Thus was the valour of 
the men an encouragement for the women’s chastity, and 
the love of the women a spur to soldiers’ bravery.” * 

The brotherhoods in arms were one of the remarkable 
features of chivalry, undoubtedly a survival of German 
customs. There is said to have been one association called 
the “Order of the White Lady with the Green Shield,” 
whose especial object was to restore to ladies, property 
taken from them by unjust plunderers. 

A celebrated cavalicr, named Hugh de Carvalai, being 
forced to separate from his brother in arms, Boucicaut, is 
related by the Chronicle to have thus spoken: “Gentle 
lord, we who have been together in happy companionship, 
have had the same wills, the same conquests, and the same 
joys; nor has either received a joy that the other has not 
partaken of. But in the account, I think, I have received 
more from you than I have given; therefore I pray you 
that we may settle, and what I owe you I will pay or 
assign over to you.” 


EP Oiatl GlaNe, 2220: 
2 Quoted in 7roubadours, etc., p. 250, by H. W. Preston. 


264 GESTA CHRISTI, 


“This is a sermon indeed!” answered Bertrand, “J have 
never thought of this account, nor know I whether I am 
indebted to you or you to me, but I pray you, as we are 
about to separate, let us be quit therein. But if we meet 
again, we will make a new debt and will have it written ; 
it now only remains for each of us to act nobly, and fan 
you to follow your master. May that affection which 
hath ever been, continue with us; and since it must be 
so, in love let us depart.” ! 

Of these fraternities the old ballad says,— 


“From this day forward ever mo’ 
Neither fail either for weal or woe, 
To help other at need : 

Brother be now true to me, 
And I shall be as true to thee !” 


The ballad then pictures the knights as vowing never to 
injure or villify each other, and to share one another’s 
dangers and trials. 

Froissart says, that there was a bond of brotherhood 
among all knights, and that “nobleness and gentleness 
ought to be aided by nobles and gentles.” It was evidently. 
a custom among them that no ransom should be set so 
high that the knight could not pay it with ease, and 

maintain a suitable rank afterwards. 

In the tribunals of justice, the title of knight was 
especially respected, it being presumed that those who had 
borne it were always disposed to defend the cause of right. 
For this very reason, when condemned for any offence, the 
knight paid a double fine, 

The devotion to ladies was the crowning grace of 
chivalry. This respect for the sex went so far that an 
act is on record of James II., of Aragon, that any man, 


1 SZ. Palaye, p. 224. 


DEVOTION TO WOMEN. 265 


whether soldier or civilian, native or foreign, travelling 
through the kingdom in company with a high-born lady, 
should be safe from all attack or pursuit, unless he were 
a criminal under the charge of murder,! 

“Vou should elect,’ says,an ancient chivalric history, 
addressing the young knight, “a lady of noble blood who 
has the ability to advise and the power to assist you ; and 
you should serve her so truly and love her so loyally as to 
compel her to acknowledge the honourable affection which 
you entertain for her. . . . But he who loyally serves 
his lady will not only be blessed to the height of man’s 
felicity in this life, but will never fall into those sins which 
will prevent his happiness hereafter. Pride will be entirely 
effaced from the heart of him who endeavours by humility 
and courtesy to win the grace of the lady. The true faith 
of a lover will defend him from the other deadly sins of 
anger, envy, sloth and gluttony; and his devotion to his 
mistress renders the thought impossible of his conduct 
ever being stained with the vice of impurity.’* There 
can be no doubt of the capacity of the knight»of chivalry 
for this pure, unsensual devotion to his mistress. The 
romances, chronicles, and histories are full of instances of 
it, and it certainly formed the ideal of great numbers of 
young men of the higher classes. Each sex too elevated 
the other, as the’ “Romance of the Rose’ says. “The 
better the chevaliers the better the ladies, and the more 
chastely did they love.” 8 


1 Statuimus quod omnis homo, sive miles sive alius qui iverit cum 
domina generosa salvus sit, etc. (Quoted by Hallam, 3, 375.) 
Bei Ti istoire, cic. du Petit Fehau, etc., 1,130. 
3 Les chevaliers mieux en valoient 
. Les dames meilleures étoient 
Et plus chastement en vivoient. 
— Romance of the Rose. 


266 GESTA CHRIS ET, 


The peculiar home of chivalry was France and England, 
If we may trust Froissart, the Germans were too rude 
and covetous in the Middle Ages, to feel powerfully the 
especial influences of the system. “Their excessive 
covetousness quencheth the sense of honour.’! “Whena 
German hath taken a prisoner, he putteth him into irons 
and hard prison without any pity, to make him pay the 
greater penance and ransom.” No chivalric spirit checked, 
in Teutonic countries, feudal licentiousness, and it was ‘the 
democratic influence of the cities rather than the generosity 
and chivalry of the knights, which protected the’ people 
from oppression. In Italy, too, there was little influence of 
chivalry to soften the barbarisms of war or raise the position 
of woman. The frequency of cruel massacres in the 
Italian wars and of assassination in time of peace, shows 
how superficial was the power of this ideal. Even in 
Spain, the model knight, the Cid, is described as cheating 
without scruple the unfortunate Jews who had lent him 
money. All the knights, too, were bigoted to-the last 
degree. That “sainted knight and most Christian king,” 
Louis IX., is said thus to have instructed his knights: 
“Argue AA with an unbeliever, be he infidel or hereuet 
but thrust the Christian lance or sword into his body as 
fast and as far as you can!” 

Still, from all the above and innumerable similar ex- 
tracts from ancient chronicles, ballads and histories, there 
comes forth a very distinct ideal of character, which un- 
questionably exceedingly influenced the higher classes of 
the Middle Ages, and has not yet lost its power. It 
Is a conception of a character, self-centered, ruling its 


1 Froissart, ii. 125. 
z AL LA 3s. 
mais a bonne espée tranchant et en frapper les médi- 
Sans et mescreans, etc. (Fozuville, i, 23.) 


4 


CHIVALRIC IDEAL OF CHARACTER. 267 


life by an elevated standard of self-respect, the elements 
of which are unshaken fidelity to a pledge, indifference 
to danger and hardship, generosity to the weak, forget- 
fulness of self in small things, and devotion to certain 
‘deal and noble ends, as the main objects of life. There 
eo with it too, in its highest forms, unselfish devotion 
to woman, courtesy and consideration to the lowest 
and poorest, an eager passion for adventure, danger and 
warfare in a good cause, and a supreme consecration to 
some supposed supernatural guide or inspirer.)( It need 
not be said that the highest moral traits of this ideal 
are an inheritance from the Faith whose influence we 
are studying. They bear the clear traces of their origin. 
Other and more earthly features belong to the vigorous 
and ardent temperament of the ancient Germans. 

By what means could pity for the unfortunate, gener- 
osity to the enemy, charity for the widow and orphan, 
unselfishness and consideration for others’ feelings and 
unswerving truthfulness, be taught the wild soldiers of 
the Middle Ages, as by the Gospels? 

The ideal before them, though mingled with many 
earthly qualities, was a Christian one. | 
The defects of this character, as history has described 
them, are but too well known. The knight cared most of 
all for his class, and soon began to be indifferent to, or to 
oppress, the common people. Even the chivalric times 
are stained with terrible acts of cruelty and brutality 
against labouring men and citizens. The enthusiastic 
devotion to woman degenerated into a licentiousness which 
contaminated a great part of European society, and af- 
fected considerable portions of literature. The barbaric 
jousts and tournaments of the Middle Ages, with the 
class feeling cultivated by chivalry, transmitted the modern 
duel, one of the barbarisms which still endures in modern 


268 GES EANCA RISE: 


society. The spirit of chivalry long supported feudalism, 
which was so great an obstacle to popular liberty and 
to material progress. The crusades were an offshoot of 
chivalry, and though they indirectly removed so many 
abuses, and awakened in a few directions the human 
intellect, yet they brought untold calamities on Europe, 
and strengthened the power of bigotry and superstition for 
centuries. 

It is of course very difficult to say how far chivalry, as 
an institution, was a reality. It certainly was an ideal and 
a sentiment, and left a deep impress on society among 
the upper classes. But to what extent the great body of 
knights were governed by their vows and professed prin- 
ciples, and whether this devotion, purity and disinterested- 
ness existed more in the fancy of poets than in the real 
life of the Middle Ages, is a question not easy to dcter- 
mine. 

Whatever in the chivalric ideal was a direct product 
of Christian influence, has endured, and still exerts its 
power. The high respect for woman, a combined result, 
as we have often said, of old German habit and Christian 
teaching, still remains and is strongest in non-feudal lands. 
The remarkable respect and courtesy shown to women 
throughout the United States, is at once a chivalric and 
Christian inheritance. If any one would find a modern 
“survival” of the journeys of the knight of chivalry 
with his fair ladye through a savage wilderness, let him 
follow Miss Bird’s ride! through the Rocky Mountains for 
six hundred miles, accompanied by desperadoes and wild 
trappers. Her influence in those solitary camps is pre- 
cisely the chivalric ideal and the Christian reality. 

The error of chivalry was in centering all things on self- 
regard and the opinion of a class. 

} Ride through the Rocky Mountatns. 


THE CHRISTIANVIDEALHIN: CHIVALRY. 269 
Chivalry as an institution has passed away :— 


“ The knights are dust, 
And their good swords are rust ; 
Their souls are with the saints we trust.” 


But the ideal of character endures. Christianity, acting 
on the German temperament, has contributed this ideal 
to the humane and moral progress of the leading races. It 
has its definite and peculiar features. 

A character and life, where the smallest stain on in- 
tegrity is felt as a sin; where the “word is as the bond,” 
where the weak and unbefriended, the orphan and op- 
pressed always claim the immediate and _ unhesitating 
defence and support; where woman is held in purest 
honour; where an habitual consideration and gentle cour- 
tesy, especially for inferiors, govern the feelings and man- 
ners; where there is a capacity for true friendship and for 
self-forgetting services, and the habit of hospitality ; where 
high aims and generous purposes, give an inherent and 
unconscious elevation and dignity to the whole nature; a 
character in which there is a silent heroism and courage 
that would face death and every ill cheerfully, in.a cause 
pleasing to the Master-—this still lives. 

Certainly true chivalry has not died out in modern days, 
and is more distinctly Christian than ever before. 


CHAPTER XXIII. 
RESUME OF REFORMS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, 


THE “Gesta Christi,’ the achievements of Christianity, 
are not like the victories of a great general, distinct con- 
quests in a given place, or on a fixed date; they rather 
resemble the triumphs of science or of civilization. bere 
and there, indeed, a definite and convincing step will 
be made in humane progress, but in general, the minds 
of man will become first silently imbued with Christ’s 
principles and be personally transformed by affection for 
Him. Then, as love and unselfishness more and more 
control their lives, and the responsibility with reference to 
a future life grows, and the habit increases of living for 
distant and impersonal good, certain great abuses which 
they have hitherto supported through ignorance and selfish- 
ness, will drop away, and gradually the great injustices 
of human society will be either be uprooted by such men, 
or will melt away under the fervour of their benevolent 
sympathies and the example of their upright lives, 

Of many great social evils, it is often difficult to say 
when they came to an end. They disappeared before the 
new Spirit in the world. 

The victories of Christ are silent victories, won in the 
individual heart and life. No history chrenicles them. 
Their fruits are seen later in the lessening or overthrow of 


great social abuses, and in the gradual growth of justice, 
270 ; 


RESUME OF REFORMS. 271 


benevolence, purity, truth, and all those feelings and 
practices which specially result from Christian teachings. 
The Spirit of God everywhere works in human society, 
and there isa “natural progress” apart from Christianity. 
Many forces, too, of selfishness or of the intellect have aided 
in the final results of human progress. The tendencies 
of commerce, the struggles of kings with barons, the asso- 
ciated life in cities, the opening influences of science, 
have all worked throughout the Middle Ages to advance 
mankind; but no help to right living and towards a more 
perfect state of society has ever been found like the 
religion of Jesus. 

(1) Its first and most powerful effect on barbaric and 
half civilized society in Europe was the new position 
which it gave to woman, and the sacred value it attached 
to marriage. As centuries go on, the test of advancing 
civilisation in each country is the advancement in the 
social, legal and political position of the weaker sex. -The 
influence of Christianity from the beginning tended to 
make woman in all appropriate things the equal of man, 
to throw her influence into every department of life, and 
even to susround her with a certain sacredness. In this, we 
need hardly repeat, the new Faith was aided by German 
habits of thought. Christianity purified the morals of 
woman, bound her to sacred duties as wife and mother, 
pledged her to labours of humanity when single, and 
everywhere sought to make her worthy of the homage she 
began to inspire. It changed the low idea of marriage, 
common even in the German tribes. It protected woman's 
rights and her property, and throughout Europe, en- 
couraged the system of dower, which was so important a 
safeguard in a wild age. Family life in these disturbed 
centuries was first purified by the religion of Christ, and 
from that has sprung whatever of good now exists in 


272 GESTA. CHERASIG 


European social life. The best human condition which 
has been transmitted, which gives the truest fore-gleam of 
a higher earthly life yet to be attained, is marriage ; 


‘and no power known in history has done so much to- 


elevate and strengthen that as the teachings of the great 
Master. The “free marriage” and easy divorce custom- 
ary throughout Europe in the early Middle Ages, were 
especially struggled against by the influence of Chris- 


tianity ; and whatever is stable in the union of husband \ 


and wife has been won by it against masculine selfishness 
and caprice. 

The reactions of the human mind at this period are not 
chargeable on Christianity ; neither the asceticism and 
celibacy of one portion of society nor the strictness of the 
canon-law. The Gospels give no countenance to any of 
these extremes. 

(2) Human society rises out of its low estate, not merely 


by elevating woman, but also by curbing the barbaric. 


passion for blood-revenge. The first influence of a love 
and faith towards Jesus Christ is to lead men to imitate 


and obey Him by controlling revenge and hatred. This 


religion accordinely acts on the half-savage tribes by 
making legal satisfactions take the place of blood-revenge 
and feuds, and elevating law in place of violence. In 
doing this, it may sometimes sanctify capital punishment, 
as placing a legal retribution higher than “ blood-money.” 
This, the first step of barbaric Europe from anarchy and 
violence to a condition of law and order, was plainly 
assisted by the new Faith. 

(3) A feudal and wild society falls naturally into “private 
war, where each chieftain fights “for his own hand,” but 
under definite forms and laws. Europe, as we have seen, 
was nearly reduced to anarchy under these uncontrolled 
habits. The figure which appeared in the storm, and 


epee ee 


PEACE OF GOD. 278 


quieted, if only for a time, the waves of strife, was CHRIST. 
It is a touching history—to read of the plundered peasants, 
the desolated towns, the wasted fields, the weeping 
widows and orphans under this curse of unrestrained war, 
and then of some simple, enthusiastic believer, who holding 
aloft an Aguus Dei, goes from village to village preaching, 
as if a new truth, the doctrine of human brotherhood, the 
“Peace of God,” until all men are inspired by a new spirit, 
and for months or years the bloody swords are left to 
rust, the homes of the poor are unplundered, and an un- 
wonted peace of God falls on a land. drenched with 
brothers’ tears and blood. Or the messenger of religion 
declares certain places and certain days sacred to peace, 
and the wild soldiers and pirates are awed into seeming 
quiet, and the poor and down-trodden have a brief respite 
from the savage tempest, and society, under religion, gets 
its first experience of peace. Surely the most materialistic 
of sceptics reading of that “ Peace of God” of the Middle 
Ages, and of that sacred person, the Friend of man, calm- 
ing the bitter storms of human wrath and strife, must 
be grateful that even the so-called “myth” of a Jesus 
survived, and that it could thus control, even for a mo- 
ment, the passions and hate and blood-thirst of men. 

(4) The arbitrations (Azstrdége) of the Middle Ages, 
are the fruits at once of the Christian and of the com- 
mercial spirit : they show the first settlement of European 
society, and foretoken that higher system of Christian 
arbitration, which shall yet reform the relations of nations. 
For in the light of the teachings of the great Master, and 
of the higher reason, it cannot be claimed that “ private 
war” is less justifiable than “public war,” as a means of 
redressing injuries. 

(5) Among the great impediments to progress in Europe 
through the Middle Ages, and the brutalizing influences, 

yh 


274 GESTA;) CHRIST. 


were the unreasonable and cruel methods of obtaining 
truth and determining justice in both civil and criminal 
cases. The “wager of battle” and the “ordeal” were 
opposed from the beginning to the spirit of the “ Religion 
of humanity.” The teachings by Christ allowed no such - 
mode of testing facts or obtaining justice, as single combat ; 
and superstitious tests have no support in His words or 
in the spirit of His life, The purest among His followers 
in every age have objected to them and argued against 
them. As His spirit has slowly imbued more and more 
individuals of all classes, the barbarous “judicial duel” has 
dropped out of use, even as His influence in modern times 
has swept away the “duel of honour.” To one inspired 
by Him the appeal to irregular methods of ascertaining 
the wili of God, is an irreverence to the Father of all, and 
opposed to the very spirit of His life. The abolition of 
the ordeal is not indeed one of the most apparent Gesta 
Christi, but it can be distinctly traced to Him. 

(6) Had the “Son of Man” been in body upon the 
earth during the Middle Ages, hardly one wrong and 
injustice would have wounded His pure soul like the 
system of torture. To see human beings, with the con- 
sciousness of innocence, or professing and believing the 
purest truths, condemned without proof to the most har- 
rowing agonies, every groan or admission under pain 
used against them, their confessions distorted, their nerves 
so racked that they pleaded their guilt in order to end their 
tortures, their last hours tormented by false ministers of 
justice or religion who threaten eternal as well as temporal 
damnation, and all this going on for ages, until scarce 
any innocent felt themselves safe under this mockery of 
justice and religion,—all this would have seemed to the 
Founder of Christianity as the worst travesty of His 
faith and the most cruel wound to humanity. 


ABOLTTIONVORF LORI URE. 275 


It need not be repeated that His spirit in each century 
struggled with this tremendous evil and inspired the great 
friends of humanity who laboured against it. The main 
forces in medizval society, even those which tended towards 
its improvement, did not touch this abuse. Roman law 
supported it ; Stoicism was indifferent to it ; Greek litera- 
ture did not affect it; feudalism and arbitrary power 
encouraged a practice which they could use for their own 
ends ; and even the hierarchy and a State Church so far 
forgot the truths they professed as to employ torture to 
support the “ Religion of Love.” But against all these 
powers were the words of Jesus, bidding men “Love your 
enemies!” “Do good to them that spitefully use you!” 
and the like commands, working everywhere on individual 
souls, heard from pulpits and in monasteries, read over 
by humble believers, and slowly making their way against 
barbaric passion and hierarchic cruelty. Gradually, in the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the books containing 
the message of Jesus circulated among all classes, and 
produced that state of mind and heart in which torture 
could not ke used on a fellow-being, and in which such an 
abuse and enormity as the Inquisition was hurled to the 
earth. 

(7) The Jewish religion and the gospel of Jesus both 
taught protection to the stranger, and help to the unfor- 
tunate. The old abuses inflicted on the stranger and 
the shipwrecked accordingly melt away before the new 
teachings. Almost every code in Europe, Charlemagne’s 
capitularies, the laws of the Northern tribes, the Sachsen- 
spiegel, the Anglo-Saxon laws and others, contain touching 
reference to the scriptural commands in regard to the 
stranger and “far-comer,’ and enforce the duties of hos- 
pitality and mercy. The shipwrecked and homeless are to 
be gently and mercifully dealt with, even as all men hope 


276 CESTAVCHRIS a, 


to be dealt mercifully with at the great tribunal. The 
change from that century when a stranger in England 
was shut up in jail like a thief, or a foreigner (audazn) 
in France became a serf of the seigneur, to the compara- 
tively hospitable laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries, and the contrast between the age when vessels 
were brought to wreck by false lights, and all shipwrecked 
were slaves and their property fair plunder, to the age 
when the laws of all nations protect the shipwrecked, and 
almost all civilized peoples feel it a duty to help such un- 
fortunates,—these changes are among the most apparent 
and blessed of the Gesta Christz,—the achievements of 
Christianity. Jesus in human annals, were He less than 
He is, might well be the patron-saint of the stranger and 
the shipwrecked. 

(8) The progress of the Middle Ages was largely assis- 
ted by their codes of law. These early efforts to establish 
order, restrain passion, cultivate self-control and promote 
humanity, are deeply stamped with the teachings of the 
Master.“ Some of these codes, like the Anglo-Saxon laws, 
seem like religious and moral exhortations, rather than a. 
body of legislation. Nearly all of them call up the sanc- 
tions of religion to enforce earthly injunctions: some appeal 
directly to the teachings of our Lord, or the Bible: all 
inculcate the gospel lessons of purity, good-will, integrity, 
honesty, truth and neighbourly kindness, not alone as 
moral and legal duties, but as portions of religion; as 
Beane Him who embodied such virtues, and as part of 
men’s responsibility to God. 

The Roman law too, wherever modified by Cheeta 
influence, carried down the spirit of the humane Teacher 
through ages of lust, cruelty, and barbarism. That it did 
not accomplish more is scarcely to be wondered at. Laws 
can only effect their best work when they represent the 


EDUCATION. 277 


united opinion and feeling of society. Christianity had 
not yet sufficiently impregnated individuals to transform 
society and make laws one of the manifestations of 
religion. | 

(9) Along with improvement of the laws in the Middle 
Ages, went advance in education. Christianity opened 
men’s minds to all truth ; it produced that humility which 
is the best guarantee of the intellect against conceit and 
pride,—often the greatest obstacles to discovery and pro- 
gress; it withdrew the faculties of superior men from 
pursuits tending to damage and destruction, towards those 
which would benefit humanity. The same result was ex- 
perienced in the “Dark Ages,” which has often been since, 
that a high moral advance is favourable to the intellect. ~ 
When the spiritual and moral faculties and sensibilities 
are elevated, the probability is that the other powers of 
the soul will feel their inspiration, and reason, judgment 
and imagination be elevated by the same influences. 

The mere turning of the mind by thousands of the \ 
youth of Europe from war to matters of religion was an | 
immense gain to the intellect. There is only a certain 
amount of vital force in a generation, and this during 
many centuries was in some degree drawn from plans of 
mutual injury, to truths and thoughts connected with the 
Christian faith, The human mind could not but gain a 
great advance from this influence alone. To this effect of 
religion was added the power of the Church, exerted, as 
we have seen, in founding schools and institutions of learn- 
ing, and the influences of monastic life encouraging the 
study and copying of the classics. Against this latter is 
to be weighed the depressing and retrograding power of 
bigotry and superstition, which found their appropriate 
home in the monastic life, and indeed all the opposition 
of the Church to pure science. 


278 GE SLAY CHRO ide 


While recognising the elevating force of the Christian 
faith on the intellect of Europe during the Middle Ages, 
we should never fail to acknowledge the remarkable 
influence on intellectual progress in the revival of classic 
literature and of Arabic science. 

(10) One of the great steps in humane progress in these 
centuries, and one on which the influence of the truths 
preached in Palestine is peculiarly apparent, is the gradual 
diminution or cessation of serfdom and slavery. The 
gospel of Christ in its pure form is not consistent with 
permanent slavery. His early. ministers were called “the 
‘brothers of the slave.” They felt “for them in bonds, as 
those in bonds with them.” Wherever He is truly loved 
and revered, there the fetters of the slave are broken. 
This power is shown at this period in the humane legisla- 
tion of various countries towards serfs and slaves, based 
often on the avowed motive that “he for whom Christ 
died, ought not to be held in bondage.” It is shown in the 
innumerable forms of will and bequests where bondsmen 
are liberated pro remedio anime, for the salvation of the 
soul, and to prepare for coming judgment. It is proved by 
the general influence of the clergy in emancipating captives ; 
and in the gradual change of slavery into serfdom, and of 
serfdom into freedom. Sometimes a great act of emanci- 
pation, like that of the city of Bologna, avows the religious 
impulse. Sometimes an eloquent preacher breaks up by 


his appeals the slave trade, as was done by Bishop Wulf- a 


stan, in Bristol, in the eleventh century. More often the 
minds of men and women in all classes become touched 
by the truths of the Gospel, until they feel that to hold 
a fellow-being in slavery or serfdom is contrary to Christ's 
commands, and they privately manumit; or they permit 
laws to be passed which gradually relieved the oppressed 
of their burdens; or they accept some form of compen- 


MANUMISSION AND CHARITY. 279 


sation for the services due to them, and the injustice slowly 
melts away. As the Scriptures circulate among the 
peasants, these become filled with the new feelings of 
human dignity imparted by the teachings of the Gospels, 
and they everywhere demand their liberty—in terrible 


‘ outbreaks which measure the burdens under which they 


suffered; yet these violent protests, though met with 
greater violence, bring after them new rights and liberties 
for the serf, Throughout the Middle Ages conscience was 
on the side of manumission, as shown in countless death- 
bed acts of emancipation. The Church itself became a 
citadel of liberty to the bondman. It is true that other 
forces worked with the religious motive: the influence of 
cities and independent communes; the Stoic philosophy 
as felt in legislation; the struggles of rival powers in the 
State, and the inconveniences of slavery itself—all these 
tended towards emancipation. But the great Emancipator 
of history is Jesus Christ. Where He rules, there all 
chains are finally broken and the oppressed go free. 

(11) It scarcely need be said that all the countless 
institutions of human compassion and charity, which 
attempted throughout Europe to relieve the horrible misery 
following the overthrow of the Roman empire, came from 
Him. The blessed associations of mercy, the hospitals, 
asylums, refuges, schools and centres of charity, which 
everywhere radiated human mercy and goodwill; the 
lives of beneficence to which so many noble souls devoted 
themselves; the innumerable actions of benevolence, 
philanthropy, and heroic self-sacrifice which light up these 
dark ages—these are all from the “Son of Man’— the 
true Gesta Christi. 


(7) And not entirely to be passed over among His grander 


achievements, are the grace and heroism and humanity 
‘nfused into Middle Age society, and so into modern life, 


280 GESITA CHRISTI. 


by the action of His faith on the German temperament. 
Chivalry has indeed a large proportion of transitory, whim- 
sical and earthly elements; but the humanity infused by it 
into wars, the respect inspired for women, the courtesy 
and consideration taught, the grace and gentleness cast — 
over society, the compassion it illustrated, belong to 
Him who embodied such pure qualities without the alloy 
of class-feeling, and who, as the “Son of Man,” was in 
sympathy with all conditions of men, and an eternal ideal 
of compassion to the unfortunate. 

It is true that Christianity in the Middle Ages never 
accomplished what should be appropriately expected of it 
in the reform of human evils. But various circumstances 
were peculiarly unfavourable to it as a moral power, It 
was first made known among degenerate and corrupt 
races, inheriting the vices and conceit of ages of successful 
violence and unrestrained lust. It then reached the wild 
tribes of the north, who were stamped with their own 
savage qualities, or tainted by contact with Roman depra- 
vity. But most fatal of all were the entire overthrow 
and confusion of society, and the invasion of ignorance and — 
lawlessness consequent on the destruction of the Roman 
empire; and the formation of a State Church and hier- 
archy, with the natural paganization of large classes, who 
were only nominal followers of the great Teacher, 

_ This combination of unfavourable circumstances has 
delayed the triumph of Christianity for many centuries. 


> ae . f ] * 
Or | Oe ko en a ee Rapid ~— 
7 Z - + 
a j pan Ar’ A. q CAA ee i ea Nn ee 


i 


ELT: 


REFORMS IN HUMANE PROGRESS BROUGHT ABOUT 
BY THIS MORAL POWER DURING THE 
MODERN PERIOD. 


CHAPTER XXALV. 
THE POSITION OF WOMAN UNDER MODERN INFLUENCES. 


E have seen in previous chapters that the steady 

drift of law and custom in Christian countries has 

been towards “the personal and proprietary independence ” 

of woman, towards equality of rights with man, and a posi- 

tion of high moral and spiritual influence in family and 
social life. 

In the Roman period the manus or absolute power of 
the husband over the wife, yielded to the new spirit abroad 
and became but a weak authority. Tutelage was done 
away with, dower was guaranteed, and the right of the 
wife secured over her personal property. While the 
moral position of woman in the Christian portion of the 
empire grew into one of remarkable sacredness and power, 
the example of Christ and the apostles elevated the 
feebler sex in the moral field, and threw into their hands 
the management of many of the charitable and spiritual 
interests of the new communities of believers. 

The Middle Ages brought into the world a fresh senti- 
ment of respect for woman—a characteristic of the Teutonic 
tribes—to strengthen the Christian feeling of reverence. 
But the German habit of mind—of measuring civil rights 
and social position by physical power or the capacity of 
bearing arms—tended to depress the standing of woman 


in all countries under the influence of Teutonic customs ; 
283 


v/ 


284 GESTA’ CHRISTI. 


while the ascetic and Oriental theories in regard to marriage 
and woman which had arisen in the Church also com- 
bined to make the legal and social status of the female 
sex below that resulting from the example and _teach- 
ings of the Master, and below what was suited to the con- 
ditions of progress. 

The greatest inequalities and injustices rested upon 
woman in the oldest and most characteristic Teutonic 
tribes ; the Scandinavians, and among the Norman-English. 
Greater privileges were allowed her among the German 
tribes of Central Europe, and in countries where Roman 
law (Christianized) had a greater power. But here again, 
ascetic influences, under the canon law, depressed her 
position, especially in the married state One ideal, 
however, survived throughout Europe among the higher 
and more martial classes, which everywhere exalted the 
weaker sex and produced an effect unknown to antiquity, 
even greatly influencing modern society. To chivalry 
woman is indebted in the Middle Ages for a position she 
had never before enjoyed in history, which gave her a 
charm almost unknown till then, and which spread over 
a society steeped in barbarism a grace and refinement 
that have come down to our day. 

It will be seen then that the position of woman from the 
advent of Christianity till the modern period, has been a 
composite one in civilized countries. In some countries 
she has lost personal independence and control of property 
in marriage ; in others she has retained her proprietary 
power, and has been substantially independént of her 
husband ; again in others she has entered into a partner- 
ship in property and interests in marriage. 

In some regions, under feudal rights, her hand had been 
under the control of her guardian and became venal. In 
others she had been under the guardianship of the king 


MODERN POSITION OF WOMAN. 285 


* 


alone ; and finally she achieved such independence as to 
control her property herself and govern her own vassals. 

Tutelage continued much longer in some parts of Europe 
than -in others; and canon law in many portions of the 
Continent’ brought the wife under a peculiar subjection, 
though leaving the maiden singularly free. 

The Christian idea we believe to be the entire equality of 
man and woman in rights and responsibilities, though this 
must be limited by practical necessities and the present 
condition of society. The drift, in all ages, under the 
teachings of the Master, has been towards this ideal; but 
like His teachings in regard to war and utter unselfishness, 
they must be compromised: somewhat to suit the present 
state of the world. Each age will see an approach towards 
that happy condition, wherein bond and free, male and 
female, learned and ignorant, are “one in Him,” with equal 
rights and equal possibilities (so far forth as nature permits). 

The modern position of woman, as related to Christi- 
anity, is perhaps best tested by her position in the society 
and under the law of the United States. 

The American Union naturally inherited, through Eng- 
land, the old Teutonic ideas in regard to woman’s position 
in marriage. They were certainly not the ideas of the 
Founder of .Christianity, whose few words in regard to 
marriage and His whole bearing towards women, gave an 
impression of His tender respect for them, and of His sense 
of the sacredness and equal value of the tie. Nor are they 
ideas of the German tribes of the centre and south of 
Europe, who allowed a much greater independence to the 
married woman, and more personal rights over her property. 
Nor are they altogether the principles of the canonists or 
the advocates of the extreme churchly view. 

The ecclesiastical authorities held indeed the theory of 
the inferiority and subjection of woman in marriage ; but’ 


4 


286 GES LA GARIS TS 


they were equally earnest in favour of the Pihite bono- 
rum, the partnership of property, and of the protection to 
the woman in securing her dower. Then they held to the 
idea, which nowhere appears in the English common law, 
of marriage as an impurity and a degradation to man and 
woman. 

The English common law ideas of woman and marriage 
evidently came down from the old Scandinavian customs 
and principles. The sex incapable of bearing arms 
could not appear in the highest form of legal trial, the 
judicial duel, and hence must be represented by a tutor 
or guardian. The husband became the natural guardian 
of his wife, and both represented and absorbed the 
person and property of his ward. Legal rights were 
measured by physical power. Then the archaic idea 
came in of retaining the property of the woman in her 
new family, and preventing both her relatives or herself 
separating it from her husband’s. Thus, perhaps, arose 
the peculiar English idea of the married woman which has 
come to us in the common law. Under it the wife’s legal 
existence was suspended or extinguished during marriage ; 
her property was sacrificed, and she was placed almost 
absolutely in the hands of her husband as regards civil 
rights. Her fortune passed to her husband for his tem- 
porary or permanent enjoyment. She could not earn 
anything for herself, nor in general make any legal 
contract, sue or be sued, because she was not legally a 
person.’ The great dramatist only pictures the common 
law when he makes one of his characters declare: “I will 
be master of what is mine own. She is my goods, my 
chattels; she is my house, my household stuff, my field, 
my barn, my horse, my ox, my ass, my anything.” 

The husband, on the other hand, loses little or nothing 


1 Schouler, Domestic Relations, ete. 


THE WIFE UNDER COMMON LAW. 287 


of his independence; but, as a compensation, the law 
compels him to pay his wife’s debts, not only when she 
acted as his agent, but those incurred before marriage. 
The husband and wife have each an interest in one 
another’s landed property, but the advantage is always with 
the husband. The wife has an interest alone after her 
husband’s death, she has none as wife. He is permitted 
despotic sway. Under the old legal nomenclature he was 
the daron, she the feme. If the husband killed the wife, 
under the old laws, he was tried as if he had killed any 
other person; but with the wife, the offence was like 
treason, a more atrocious crime, and she was denied 
“benefit of clergy.” In case of children and real estate 
left without a will, a son, though younger, inherited before 
a daughter. The wife’s personal property belonged to her 
husband, which he can bequeath to another; if he dies 
without will, she has one-third of the personal property 
if there are children; one-half if there are none. This, 
however, is a provision derived from the Roman rather 
than from the old English law. 

The husband is absolute master of the wife’s rents and 
profit from landed property during their marriage, and 
if there are children he retains a life interest in the real 
estate. If the wife survive, she has only a right to dower, 
or one-third of the real estate for life. The husband, after 
his wife’s death, has a right of “curtesy” in her estate; 
but the wife at his death has no such right; she is taxed 
on other property than her dower, without representation. 
“The very goods which a man giveth to his wife,” says a 
curious work of the seventeenth century, the “Woman’s 
Lawyer,’? “are still his owne; her chaine, her bracelets, 


1 Blackstone, i. 445, Note. 
* The Lawwes Resolutions of Women’s Rights, p. 129. 1632, 
London. It should be remarked that Magna Charta protected dower. 


288 GESTANCARIST? 


her apparell, are all her good-man’s goods. If before 
marriage the woman were possessed of horses, sheepe, 
corne, Woole, Plate and Jewels, all manner of moveable 
substance is presently by conjunction the husband's, to 
sell, keep, or bequeath if he die.” 4 

The husband’s and wife’s legal existence was merged 
into one, and that was the husband’s.? 

This state of coverture was defined as that of one 
“covered,” or sub potestate viri, under the absolute power 
of the husband. “The Law of Nature hath put her under 
the obedience of her husband, and hath submitted her will 
to his,” which she is not permitted to contradict during her 
life.* She wants free will as minors want judgment 

Among other singular injustices inflicted on women by 
this old Teutonic system, is that the wife, at the decease 
of her husband, was not allowed to administer in pre- 
ference to his kindred, on the personal estate, though it had 
once been entirely hers. He, on the other hand, could 
administer on her estate for his own benefit, and exclude 
her kindred altogether even from a share in the assets. 

If she survived, she had only her own real estate and— 
such of her personal property as he had not appropriated 
to his own use, and a few unimportant articles (“ para- 
phernalia”). She cannot restrain his rights by will. 

Till the reign of William and Mary, Blackstone states,® 
woman by the English common law could receive sentence 
of death and be executed for the first offence in such 
crimes as larceny, bigamy, and manslaughter, while a 
man (who could read) was, for the same offences, subject 


LaPeTRO, 

* Sa feme et luine sont fors que un person enley. (Lz¢t/eton, Liv. 
li, sect. 168). 

° Baron et Feme, p. 71. * LOU 2 0. TAT 7IG). 

5 Schouler, p. 61. 8 Vol ipraas: 


WOMAN UNDER COMMON LAW. 289 


only to the burning of the hand or a few months’ imprison- 
ment. ‘This, however, is a discrimination against woman as 
not being admitted to spiritual orders, rather than against _ 
her as woman. In case of a daughter’s ruin by the 
deceits of a pretended lover, the only reparation to the 
unhappy father was through the plea, that she was his 
servant and that he was deprived of the benefit of her 
labour, and that the seducer had trespassed on his 
premises. 

“Female honour, which is dearer to the sex than their 
lives,” says this authority, “is left by common law to the 
sport of an abandoned calumniator,” referring of course to 
oral defamation. The elopement of a wife with a culty 
partner took away from her, by an ancient statute, all right 
of dower. The husband might commit the same offence 
and still retain a right over his wife’s property. 

“A poor woman,” says the “ Woman’s Lawyer,”! “shall 
have but the third foote of her husband’s lands when he is 
dead, for all the service she did him during the acouple- 
ment (a long time and tedious), and if she be extravagant 
with a friend, this is an elopement and a forfeiture.” The 
criminal conduct of men, the author claims, is not noticed 3 
“they may lope over ditch and dale, a thousand out-ridings 
and out-biddings is no forfeiture, but as soon as the cood 
wife is gone the bad man will have her land, not the third, 
but every foote of it.” ? 

The husband, too, as in almost all the Teutonic codes, 
had the right to beat his wife. “Justice Brooke,” says the 
Woman’s Lawyer, “affirmeth plainly that if a man beat 
an outlaw, a traitor, a pagan, his villein, or his wife, it is 
dispunishable, because by the Law Common these persons 


The Lawwes Resolutions of Women’s kighis. 
a. Pe rag. 


290 LSTAVCATIS LT. 


can have no action. God send gentlewomen better sport 
or better companie!”} 

The tendency of the early English common law, was met 
in the English legislation, by the influences of right reason, 
and Christianity, The principles of the Roman law and 
of equity were carly applied to correct the evils and the 
injustices of the old Teutonic code. The Lord Chancellor's 
Court or Court of Chancery, which was essentially a Court 
of Equity, became a court of great importance and of 
ordinary jurisdiction, even as far back as Edward III. 
In the reign of James I. adjudication was obtained through 
this court to secure to the married woman a separate use 
of her property; and by 1695, it was clearly established 
that a wife might have her separate estate in trust. ? 
Especially during the last hundred years, a doctrine of 
woman’s rights more consonant to humane ‘and Christian 
ideas has been maintained in the Equity Courts of England. 
The great truth everywhere urged by the Master, of the 
distinct personality and responsibility of each human 
being, has been applied to the woman as wife by these 
courts, and her equality with man more and more ad- 
vanced. The Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870, 
1874, and especially that of 1882, seem to give absolute 
liberty to the wife of acquiring, holding, and disposing of 
any property as her separate property ; ‘so that even the 
wages of a married woman in Great Britain, the profits 
of her literary, artistic or scientific skill, her deposits in 
savings banks, and indeed all property which may belong to 
her at marriage, or be acquired by her during marriage, is 
hers, as if she were a femme sole. We do not dweil on these 
important stages of humane progress, because the American 
legislation better shows the high-water mark of this drift 
of ideas and of practices under the power of Religion, 

IEP 5126. ? Spencer’s Lgutty Surisprudence, p. 596. 


AMERICAN LEGISLATION ON WOMAN. 291 


American Legislation.—The highest fruit of this influence 
on legislation as to women, is to be seen undoubtedly in 
the United States, and particularly in the legislation of 
the State of New York, which has always led in the field 
of humane administration. 

The reforms in this matter seem to have begun in 
the New England States—especially in Massachusetts and 
Maine—early in this century. The first object was to 
secure the independence of wives who were abandoned, 
or of those whose husbands were convicts, runaways or 
profligates. A public recognition was made of marriage 
settlements and of trusts for the wife’s separate benefit. 
Then her right was secured to her of disposing of her 
property by will, and, in some States, her estate was 
exempted from liability for her husband’s debts. The 
great and sweeping reforms in this direction, however, date 
from American legislation in 1848.1 These laws extend 
the doctrine of a separate estate for the wife; they provide 
that her real and personal property shall not be put at the 
disposal of the husband or made liable for his debts. It 
continues her sole estate, and she is permitted to receive 
property in like manner by gift, grant, devise or bequest. 
This humane and advanced legislation has been imitated 
and followed. Most liberal provisions have been enacted, 
securing the property held by a woman before her 
marriage, and all acquisitions made through her husband 
or third persons, after marriage. All her earnings are in 
her own power, and there is almost complete emancipation 
from marital dominion. She can bequeath by will as if 
she were single.’ 

In 1860-62, these rights were still farther enlarged. 


* Schouler, p. 209. These are reforms especially in the legislation 
of the State of New York. 
* New York legislation. See Schouler, 8 bid. 


292 GESTA SCH RISA, 


Married women were permitted entire control of their 
personal property, and could carry on any trade or per- 
-form any labour on their sole account; and their earnings 
could be invested for themselves. A wife is permitted to 
sell or convey her own real estate, to sue and be sued, to 
bring an action in her own name against any person or 
body corporate, and to make any bond to bind her separate 
property. None of these transactions bind her husband. 

A judgment can be enforced against her separate 
‘estate! Of the general position of married women in 
the legislation of New York, a high authority, Schouler, 
says, “Married women in that State are well nigh eman- 
cipated altogether from marital restraints, so far as 
concerns their property, while the husband’s own rights 
therein are exceedingly precarious” ? 

A recent case in the courts of New Hampshire, gives a 
practical illustration of the advanced American view of the 
position of woman. A husband was sued for slanderous 
words of his wife against another woman. He took the 
ground that he was not responsible for the torts of his 
wife ; that her property was not his, nor her earnings his, 
nor her legal subjection to him any greater than his to her, 
and that he was no more liable for her wrong doing than 
she for his. The court sustained his demurrer, stating that 
“the husbands of these female parties are strangers to the 
proceedings.” The Loston Herald (April 15, 1882), quotes 
thus from Judge Foster’s decision :— 


“As Judge Foster states it, the woman being thus by the common 
law utterly within her husband’s control, his chattel, his ‘ox,’ he became 
personally and solely answerable for her torts, as for the trespasses of 
his other domestic cattle ; and, of course, the law could pursue no other 
consistent system than that which declared all her contracts absolutely 
void. Such was the social and legal status of a married woman 


1 Kent's Covi, i. 111, note. * Domestic Relations, p. 214. ° 


POSITION, OF THEA MOTHER, 293 


centuries ago ; and the change of her condition before the law seems 
to be much less in England than in New Hampshire. The influences 
of Christianity and a more widely diffused and higher system of moral 
and religious education have gradually ameliorated woman’s social 
condition, and elevated her to the state of dignity and importance she 
possesses to-day. Like all the changes of advancing civilization, this 
change has been very gradual, but it has been a steady march from 
slavery to freedom. Herbert Spencer says that in the United States 
women have reached a higher status in the social structure than any- 
where else, and Judge Foster adds that it is equally true that in many 
of the States, certainly in New Hampshire more than anywhere else, 
have the legal distinctions between the sexes been swept away.” He 
continues : 

“Thus, by progress in the same direction, by changes religious, 
social, customary, legislative and judicial, the rule of the common law 
has been abolished and obliterated; and it is no longer possible to say 
that in New Hampshire a married woman is a household slave or a 
chattel, or that in New Hampshire the conjugal unity is represented 
solely by the husband. By custom and by statute the wife is now 
joint master of the household and not a slave or a servant. The rule 
now is that her legal existence is not suspended. So practically has 
the ancient unity become dissevered and dissolved that the wife may 
not only have her separate property, contracts, credits, debts, wages, 
and causes of separate action growing out of a violation of her personal 
rights, but she may enter into legal contract with her husband and 
enforce it by suit against him.” } 


We have observed how, in the history of the past, 
Christianity has strengthened the position of the mother. 

From the allusion in Justinian’s Code,? where reverence 
is enjoined on the sons towards their mother, but no legal 
rights are given her, and the dictum of Blackstone, that 
“a mother as such is entitled to no power, but only to 
reverence,” to the American legislation of 1860, there is 


1 This case has not yet, however, become a precedent. It only 
shows the tendency of judicial decisions. 

2 Code, lib, viii. tit. xlvil. 4. . « » reverentiam autem debitam 
exhibere matri filios coget. 

3 Comin., 1. 453. 


294 GESTA TCHAISE., 


a progress which shows the profound power of the ideas 
scattered by this Faith. 

The inferior legal position of the mother in the English 
courts of law, as distinguished from equity, was no fiction. 
An English case! has often been quoted where a father 
was permitted by the court to take the children from 
a blameless wife, and place them under the charge of his 
cuilty partner. Judge Story, even before the reformed 
legislation, ventured to contradict the presumption of the 
English law, that the father has any vested right in the 
custody of the children. But in the United States, such is 
the power of the humane principles of the Gospels taught 
in every pulpit and school, the people become imbued 
with sentiments of justice and mercy before the lawyers or 
the judges, and legislation has been usually in advance of 
the courts. 

By the legislation of 1860 (afterwards changed), every 
married woman was declared joint guardian, with the 
husband, of their children, with equal rights. Earlier 
statutes gave the custody of the child to the mother where 
the partners lived separated without divorce. In some 
States, the preference was given to the mother, where the 
child was very young. In general by American legis- 
lation, the custody of the child is determined by its 
interests and not the claim of the parents. The mother 
in a legal point of view may be said to stand on an 
equality, in most respects, with the father in the more 
advanced American legislation. 

Another peculiarity of legislation in the same direction, 
is the protection afforded to the young girl against the 
deceptions of the other sex. In many States, seduction 
accompanied with promise of marriage is a serious crime, 
and is severely punished; and the loss to the girl of 

1 Rex v. Greenhill, 


PARTINGESAHITRINGRROPERT ¥. 295 


hitherto pure character is not measured by the value of her 
services to her father or her guardian, but by the higher 
considerations in the new estimate of woman. 

Judge Kent says very justly of all this class of legis- 
Jation in. woman’s favour ; “The i:pre-eminence of the 
Christian nations in Europe and of their descendants and 
colonists in every quarter of the globe, is most strikingly 
displayed in the equality and dignity which their insti- 
tutions confer upon the female character.” ! 

The Civil law in such southern portions of the Union 
as had been brought more closely under the influence 
of Roman law, secured a remarkable independence to 
the wife. But the comsmunio bonorum or partnership in 
property, which is a feature of marriage under this legis- 
lation, was one of the slow gains won by Christianity ;— 
Roman law having substantially dropped it before Justinian. 

In the Middle Ages, where we find this feature, it is 
a fruit of the religious sentiment, urging justice and 
equality in the marriage relation. It cannot be regarded, 
however, as so high a stage of progress, or so pre-eminently 
Christian, as the position assigned to woman in marriage 
by the American legislation; for each human being, 
under the Faith taught in Galilee, is an independent 
responsible existence having a right from all others to 
the same justice and consideration which he is bound to 
extend. Each woman under these teachings has a claim 
to the utmost exercise of: her capacities, and to perfect 
equality with all others as to rights of property and per- 
sonal rights. Woman from the earliest times of Christianity 
held a position of independence and of great responsibility. 
Marriage under the religious conception is the highest 
moral union, and whatever is yielded by the one sex is 
given up from motives of unselfish affection, and the 


Comm: vol. ii, ps 187. 


296 GESTA CHRISTI. 


claims of the one sex are balanced by those of the other. 
Accordingly rights of property in both are equal; and 
personality may be asserted in them, if it be for the 
highest interest of both. : 

The progress of the religious sentiment and of right rea- 
son will bé continually in this direction, towards asserting 
the absolute legal independence and equality of woman. 

It will here be asked: Does not this lead to the share 
of women in government? Undoubtedly it does ultimately. 
Christianity by itself no more teaches female suffrage than 
it does republicanism or free trade. But it throws into 
human society that sentiment of equality before God, that 
principle of equal rights and equal responsibility, and of 
universal brotherhood, which all lead logically to these ¢ 
results. The thorough application and carrying out of 
Christian principles in human society is a result only to be 
expected in distant ages. In the meantime it is the part 
of wisdom to prepare the world for these great changes, 
and to begin them by slow and careful steps. In the 
United States, and England, a useful beginning has been 
made in regard to woman, by admitting her vote in elec- 
tions for school trustees and in municipalities. The time 
is not far distant when in some communities her vote, 
limited by education and property, will be received on 
larger fields of suffrage. So great and vital a change 
will thus be made slowly and with careful prepara- 
tion. Woman will be trained and educated for her new 
duty. | 

The final effects on society of this important reform can- 
‘not now be predicted; but as it is in the line of all the 
other great changes which have attended humane progress 
under Christianity, we may reasonably hope that the ulti- 
mate results will be equally happy for mankind. 

The moral position of woman in the leading Christian 


WOMAN IN THE UNITED STATES. 297 


races is far advanced beyond anything known in the past. 
A very considerable portion of the education of the youth 
of the United States, for instance, is in the hands of female 
teachers. The public and private schools, the academies, 
high schools, ward and village schools are taught to a very 
large degree by women. Colleges for women, ‘too, have 
sprung up in various States, in many of which advanced 
courses of instruction are pursued. The medical profession 
is open to a certain extent to women ; and there are female 
physicians with large and profitable practices. But the 
field where women publicly are most efficient is the 
management of charities, especially for the young. They 
conduct most of the orphan asylums, “homes” for the 
poor, industrial schools, foundling asylums and _ similar 
charities throughout the United States. Hundreds of 
thousands of the poor are brought continually under their 
influence. The ladies of the educated classes organized, 
during the Civil War, the remarkable agency for helping 
the wounded, which worked in co-operation with the Sani- 
tary Commission, and relieved an untold amount of misery. 
This association was in affiliation with hundreds of socie- 
ties of relief throughout the country, and was as remark- 
able for its organization as its humanity. ; 

Since the war, women have mainly founded the various 
important societies for inspecting public charities, and the 
charity organization associations which have reformed so 
many public abuses, and prevented and relieved so much 
misfortune. | 

Women are now being appointed for the State boards 
of charity, the school boards, and similar important public 
organizations. 

Almost equally important work has been done by 
women in Europe, in labours of public charity, in assist- 
ance to the wounded, and in the direction of education. 


7 ss 


298 GESTA \CHRTS 77; 


In England, ladies of position have been elected to the 
school boards, and have been placed in public offices con- 
nected with charities. They have long been (where they 
represented property) members of vestries and have voted 
in municipalities. 

In Germany, during the Franco-German War, associa- 
tions of women everywhere sought to heal the terrible 
evils of war, and to relieve the wounded, whether among 
the enemy or their own countrymen. 

In social and private life in the United States, woman 
has profound and often well-deserved influence. In her 
early direction of the education and religious training of 
the young, in her social influence and the moral power 
she exerts over the other sex in all classes, we begin to 
observe the true and legitimate effects of the faith of Jesus. 
In the lower classes she checks intemperance, and con- 
tinually strives to raise the children to a higher range of 
life. In the middle classes she urges the moral side of all 
causes, promotes honesty in the payment of debts, sup- 
ports the best movements of charity and religion, and has 
often a high ambition for the education and advancement 
of her children. In the fortunate classes, amid much fri- 
volity and display, the sex still keeps family life pure, and 
leads the other in all humane efforts, and in real religious 
feeling. It is true that the sex has much to answer for in 
the United States, in stimulating extravagance and vulgar 
ambition. But woman still leads the nation in all the 
higher and more unselfish aims and labours. 

And if, as often seems, a night of scepticism in America 
and Europe is to descend upon the most generous minds 
among the men, woman will still keep lighted the torch 
of faith, and guide the race till the morning shines again 
to all, Whatever position woman holds in civilized 
society is clearly a fruit of Christianity. Even should, 


WOMAN UNDER AGNOSTICISM. 299 


by evil chance, agnosticism at length become for a time 
the creed of the world, Christian traditions would long 
survive. But if after the lapse of ages all men and all 
women should live “without God and without nope. 
in the- world, and the Christian “Good News” be as 
a long-forgotten, once welcome sound of Sabbath bells 
heard in a dream, and reverence for anything supernal 
have faded away, and the ties of earth be'but the acci- 
dental bonds of beings soon to disappear, and the unselfish 
living for others an “altruism” to end in nought in a few 
days, then will woman become but as a weaker fellow- 
animal, with no especial respect encincliney her sand 
perhaps will herself lose the purity and sanctity which 
made her under Christianity the object of so much reve- 
rence, 

Woman, in a society to which immortality is a dream 
_ and Christ a myth, would after the course of centuries lose 
the ideal position which Christianity had given her. On 
her would especially fall the degeneracy and melancholy 
Ol tne: Tace: 

We need not say, however, to those who have studied 
the laws of human progress, that a reaction must come to 
any such degeneracy, or the race must die. Faith and 
hope must resume their power; unselfishness must become 
again the highest ideal of the soul; Christianity, or some 
new revelation of the unseen, must shine again after ages of 
darkness, and as the human race advances, woman must 
retake the position the Faith of Jesus had given her, 

Either this, or an utter degeneracy and the final ruin of 
mankind, 


CHAPTER: XXV., 
DIVORCE. 


HUMANE and moral progress is almost coincident with 
the increasing sacredness attached to the marriage-bond. 
That earliest of evolutionists, Lucretius, justly dates the 
first true refinement! of the human race from “ chaste 
single marriage.’ We have shown to what degree the 
extraordinary social depravity and degradation of Roman 
society under the emperors were due to the looseness 
of this tie. In the modern world, that form of faith 
which has most neglected monogamy and has most clearly 
taught freedom of divorce, has been followed by the 
greatest degradation of woman. The Mohammedan ~ 
countries show what social fruits a license in this matter 
brings forth. 

We have already spoken of Christ’s view of marriage, 
repeated and followed by the Apostles and the early Chris- 
tians. The Master regarded it as one of the most holy and 
permanent of human relations. He evidently set a value 
upon it as upon no other external relation or institution. 
All other human connections were to be abandoned for it: 
God Himself had formed it, and it was only to be broken 
and a new relation joined for the most serious and profound 
reasons. The Apostles, indeed, did not always so fully 


1 Tum genus humanum primum mollescere ccepit. (De Rer. Nace 


lib. 5.) 


300 


CHRISTIAN VIEW OF DIVORCE. 301 


appreciate it; yet they compared it to the most mysterious 
and earnest bond known to man—that uniting the soul to 
its Redeemer. All these, too, have everywhere taught 
that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that 
any connection, other than that of marriage, defiles that 
temple. 

It is true that the Church early fell into an extreme of © 
asceticism and celibacy. Still the distinctive teachings of 
Christ must be admitted to present the highest possible 
ideal of marriage, and the utmost sense of its sacredness, 
We are not, however, prepared to say that the words of 
Jesus are to be followed, without admitting any possible 
limitation or exception. In the few precepts quoted from 
Him, He apparently admits but one ground of divorce— 
unfaithfulness ; and He forbids re-marriage if the partners 
are separated through any other cause. Paul extends the 
grounds to malicious desertion by an unbelieving partner, 
and apparently permits re-marriage; yet this permission 
is doubted by many commentators, 

It may fairly be reasoned in so difficult and important a 
matter, that the Master included in unfaithfulness anything 
which openly and clearly perverted the ends of the relation : 
and that Paul, who probably knew of teachings by Him 
of which we have not heard, inferred even a greater latitude, 
where so great a separating power as difference of religious 
faith came in between the partners. 

As we have stated before, the true inference from these 
early teachings is that the utmost sanctity is to be attached 
to marriage, and that divorce is only to be permitted from 
the most serious grounds, which affect the very existence 
of the relation. 7 

Under the Christian teachings, men are not lightly to 
enter on marriage ; they are to observe it loyally ; it is a 
bond for life and death; much is to be endured for the 


302 GESTA CHRISTI. 


sake of sustaining it, even if it be not in all respects 
complete; perfect faithfulness and purity are demanded 
from man as from woman ; if separation occur from light 
cause, the partners are not permitted to marry another ; 
and if a final breaking of the tie take place, it must be 
from very profound and serious reasons, such as make the 
marriage no true union of body and soul. This we believe 
to be substantially the Christian doctrine of marriage. 

But as this is the one exception in which Christ’s words 
apply to institutions or outward acts, and not to principles, 
we may easily be mistaken as to the ee of His 
teachings. 

What has this moral doctrine accomplished in the world’s 
progress? The words of the Lord were first uttered amid 
a community—the Jewish—where polygamy had been 
tolerated, and free divorce of the wife by the husband 
was permitted. 

They were thrown as seeds into another society—the 
Roman—where, as we have shown, divorces were daily, 
and the marriage relation had reached its lowest state of 
degradation, and family morals were corrupt to the last 
degree. The struggle against free divorce, as we have 
indicated, was a changing one under the so-called Christian 
emperors of Rome, and throughout the ancient world. 
Even Justinian was obliged to issue a law,! which revoked 
what he had promulgated against too free divorce, Still 
everywhere into Roman and barbaric society was pene- 
trating a new conception of marriage, or at least a respect 
and reverence for it, and an opposition to divorce, such as 
the ancient world had never known, The Christian con- 
ception was in harmony with the German, though the 
northern tribes permitted polygamy, and often indulged in 
too free divorce. This fresh principle of purity and respect 

1 Nov., 140, 


DIVORCE AND ROMAN LAW. 303 


for marriage, did more than anything towards saving the 
barbaric tribes from the degeneracy which had overtaken 
the Greeks and Romans. Roman law, before Justinian, 
showed the effect of the new Faith, in strengthening this 
bond, but not by any means to the degree which might 
have been hoped for. Where divorce occurred on account 
of the guilty conduct of one of the partners, the conse- 
quences to the guilty one in a pecuniary direction were 
made more heavy than under the old Roman law, and 
occasionally re-marriage was restricted ; but divorce by 
mutual consent, with liberty of re-marriage, was finally 
permitted. 

The drift of influence, as the Christian doctrines came 
more and more into power in the Middle Ages, was in 
‘favour of the permanence of marriage. Yet this was 
modified by non-Christian views which also imbued society 
under the influence of the Church. Celibacy became too 
highly honoured, and marriage was looked upon as a 
species of impurity. A vast deal of concealed vice and 
concubinage existed, especially among the clergy—a 
natural reaction against these extreme views. The clergy, 
who were generally unmarried, had the framing of the 
canon-law on matrriage, and in consequence made it the 
expression of the extreme ascetic doctrine. Under their 
influence marriage became a sacrament, and for scarcely 
any cause could be broken; while the position of the 
woman was inferior in this relation to what it had been 
under the purely Christian view. The general churchly 
view of divorce in the Middle Ages is thus concisely stated 
by Pres. Woolsey in his excellent essay:1 (1) That no 
crime of either partner, being Christian, justified re-marriage 
fomatourer during ‘the lite of the -effender. (2) -If an 


1 Essay on Divorce. This vaiuable little book is the clearest and 
most able monogram on divorce, in modern writing. 


304 GESTA CHRISTI. 


infidel partner deserted.a Christian, the latter could re- 
marry. (3) Consorts separated by criminal conduct could 
unite with each other again, but the guilty one must do 
penance. | 

There were conflicting views in regard to the right of 
re-marriage after separation for criminal conduct; but on 
the whole, the prevailing belief was that this should be 
only a separation, not a divorce. 

These extreme views, going far beyond the Christian 
doctrine, first discouraging marriage, then making marriage 
avery heavy burden which could never be removed, pro- 
duced naturally a great reaction. The Protestant Reformers 
expressed in their lives and doctrines this reaction. They 
were, as might be expected, indignant at the fearful amount 
of corruption and vice, natural and unnatural, which had 
grown up under the extreme Roman Catholic ideas, They 
saw that the worst offence against the marriage-bond was 
looked upon with indifference or excuse; and that where 
this crime separated the partners, it did not relieve the 
innocent one ;! she, perhaps, being compelled to a life of 
solitude and penury, while her guilty partner continued his 
round of wicked pleasures, or lived in open concubinage ; 
or, if of weak nature, she was left to temptations which she 
could with difficulty resist. The Protestant Reformers 
were accordingly in favour of freer divorce. There was a 
difference of view among the Churches, some few holding 
that the bond could only be broken by death or criminal 
conduct, but the majority extending the causes of divorce 
to malicious desertion, and some permitting even cruel 
treatment or the opinion of the judge to determine a 
lawful breaking of the tie.? 

The modern tendency of opinion in Europe, partly as 
a re-action against excessive strictness, is unquestionably 

2 Woolsey. ; 3 Lbid. 


EUROPEAN TENDENCIES. 305 


towards freer separation. France has passed through the 
period of revolutionary ideas, and under the famous Codec 
Civil has permitted great laxity in this matter, but with 
the fall of the first Empire, she returned to the old eccle- 
siastical legislation on marriage ; yet this stage of opinion 
will probably not endure long, and legislation will be ob- 
tained for more ready divorce. Much freedom of divorce 
is given by the Prussian Code, yet certain obstacles are 
thrown in the way of separation from mere Gaprice; sand 
in case of criminal conduct, provision is made to compel 
the guilty partner to make compensation for the benefit 
of the children of the innocent partner! 

The Austrian Code is very lax in its restrictions on 
divorce towards non-Catholics, though retaining the ecclesi- 
astical laws for Catholics. In Switzerland there is also 
very considerable freedom of divorce. In England the 
- legislation is much stricter than in other Protestant 
countries. Separation from “bed and board” is permitted 
for injuries and cruel treatment, for desertion during two 
years, or for criminal conduct. Divorce is allowed for 
the adultery of the wife, and for “incestuous adultery,” or 
bigamy, with other similar offences of the husband. Both 
parties can remarry at once after divorce; and the guilty 
member be united with the partner in crime. The courts 
are permitted to settle the guilty wife’s property on the 
husband and children. 

United States Law.—The views expressed by courts and 
jurists in the United States in regard to marriage, bear 
evidently the stamp of the Christian doctrine, but it cannot 
be said that American legislation has been at all in har. 
mony with it. Thus Chief Justice Robertson 2 says, 


1 Woolsey, p. 147. 
* Logan v. Logan. Quoted by Cor, sect. 936. 
x 


306 GESTA CHRISTI, 


“ Marriage being more fundamental and important than any of the 
social relations, is controlled as to its obligation by a peculiar policy, 
deemed essential to the welfare of the whole community. Being a 
contract for life, indissoluble by the consent of the parties merely, it 
should not be dissolved by the sovereign will for any other causes , 
than such as are subversive of its essential ends, or inconsistent with 
the general welfare. And it is certainly important to the general 
stability and harmony of that relation, that the parties should know 
that having taken each other with all their infirmities and vowed 
reciprocal fidelity and forbearance for life, it is their interest as well as 
their duty to bear and forbear, as far as the resources of love, philoso- 
phy and religion can enable them.” 


And again, 


‘The institution of marriage, commencing with the race and at- 
tending man in all periods, and in all countries, has ever been con- 
sidered the particular glory of the social system. It has shone forth 
in dark countries and in dark periods of the world, a bright luminary 
on his horizon. And but for this institution, all that is valuable, 
all that is virtuous, all that is desirable in human existence, would 
long since have faded away in the general retrogression of the race, 
and in the perilous darkness in which its joys and its hopes would 
have been wrecked together.! 


A careful writer on the “ Domestic Relations,’ Schouler, 
says, 


“When parties united in the solemn responsibility of marriage, can 
coolly discuss and arrange the preliminaries of final dissolution, and 
haste to obtain judicial relief for the purpose of forming a new union, 
as is sometimes done in our land, they are hardly fitted to discharge 
nature’s highest obligations to one another ; certainly they cannot do 
justice to their children nor to society. Thus may marriage lose half 
its significance by parting with all its sanctity.” ? 


Judge Story says, 


“It (marriage) appears to me sometimes more than a mere contract. 
It is rather to be deemed an institution of society, founded upon the 


Dae ee NR TR I Ah 


1 Bishop. Oz Divorce, p. 13. 
2 Schouler. Ox the Domestic Relations, p. 302. 


AMERICAN LEGISLATION. 307 


consent and contract of the parties, and in this view it has some 
peculiarities in its nature, character, operation, and extent of obliga- 
tion, different from what Selene. to ordinary contracts.” } 


In a work of this nature, it is not necessary to give a 
detailed sketch of the legislation on divorce in the different 
American States. In what we have to say, we follow 
mainly Prest. Woolsey’s admirably clear resumé. The State 
where the marriage law was most strict before the civil 
war, was South Carolina, in which it is stated that no case 
of divorce ever came before the courts, and no divorce was 
ever granted by the legislature, nor was ever even a legal 
separation granted by law. In New York State, the law 
greatly resembles the English legislation: divorce is per- 
mitted for adultery, and separation for specific acts, the 
great differences being that if one of the partners is found 
guilty of adultery, a re-marriage is not permitted during 
the lifetime of the innocent member, and that husband and 
wife are put on precisely the same footing as to criminal 
conduct as a ground of divorce. 

The majority of the States, however, permit divorce 
for a great variety of causes, and present a looseness of 
procedure which has increased the facility for a legal 
separation on trivial grounds to an alarming extent. In 
most of the States, adultery, malicious desertion under 
various conditions, imprisonment for crime, neglect to 
provide for a wife’s maintenance, cruelty and habitual 
drunkenness, are held as grounds of divorce, and in a 
few the membership of a religious society which regards 
marriage to be unlawful. But beyond these, in certain 
States * divorce is left to the discretion of the court ; and 


1 Confl. of Laws, 108. 
* Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, Rhode Island and Connecticut, 
(Woolsey, pp. 204, 205.) 


308 GESTA) CHAISTS, 


in Connecticut a statute allows divorce for “any such 
misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the 
petitioner, and defeats the purpose of the conjugal rela- 
tion.” This particular clause in the statute was repealed 
in 1878, with very good results in the following year, there 
being 316 divorces against 401 of the previous year. The 
effects, however, since that date have not been remark- 
able. | 

It is in the above State, and Indiana, that divorce laws 
have been most loose. A year’s residence in the latter 
qualified a person to petition for divorce ; the case could 
be tried thirty days after notices had been published in 
a newspaper of the county; the defendant was often 
ignorant of the proceedings, and both parties were freed 
by the divorce from the marriage contract. 

The liberty of re-marriage varies exceedingly in the 
different States, the greater number however putting no 
restriction on the union of divorced persons. 

The result of this license of divorce in the average. 
number of divorces to the marriages is an instructive fact. 
Thus fron 1860 to 1867, in Vermont, out of 15,710 
marriages there were 730 divorces, or I to 21°5; in Mas- 
sachusetts, from 1861 to 1866, I to 44:4; in Ohio, from 
1865 to 1866, I to 26; and in Connecticut, from 1860 
to 1867, 1 to 11°40; and in 1864, there was one divorce 
in that State to nearly every ten marriages.1 We have 
not the figures for Indiana. In Prussia, the ratio for 
non-Catholics in 1855 was 1 to 29; in Belgium in 1874, 
1 to 272;'in France, from 1871 to 1874,.1 to Looe 

It will be seen from this brief sketch, that the Christian 
doctrine of divorce, as we understand it, has seldom in the 
world’s history been accepted in its pure form. Christi- 


1 Woolsey, pp. 221, 222. 
2 Naquet, Le Devorce. 


LIGENSEVIN: DIVORCE: 309 


anity has strengthened marriage in every age. But on 
one side, has been too much asceticism, or too much 
strictness with the marriage-tie, and on the other, too much 
looseness of the bond. ; 

The present drift is the opposite to that of the Middle 
Ages, and towards an excessive license in divorce. There 
can be little question that the extreme difficulties thrown 
about separation, such as the English law presents, or 
such as have been offered in South Carolina, have been 
unwholesome. They bring about great hardships and 
injustices in the marriage relation, and tempt to con- 
cubinage. The latter is said to have been very common in 
South Carolina under the old law! English society among 
the higher classes is reported as much more contaminated 
with this relation than is American society under freer 
divorce laws. Catholic countries under the strict canon 
law do not present certainly nearly so happy a condition 
in regard to marriage, as do Protestant countries, where 
much latitude is allowed. 

On the other hand, the conviction is growing among 
the most thoughtful persons in the United States. thataie 
a license in divorce increases, such as has been allowed in 
a few of the States, the utmost peril threatens the most 
important interests of society. There is danger of marriage 
losing all its sacredness; of its being taken up and dropped 
like concubinage, and the children of these unhappy con- 
nections floating about, uncared for, on the currents of 
society. There is nothing as yet in American society of 
the old Roman license of morals in regard to marriage 
and divorce, and there could not be where Christianity 
had the faintest influence; but there are dangers ominous 
for. this relation which are arousing general anwiety. 
Public opinion in such States as Indiana and Connecticut, 


? See Bishop, On Divorce. 


310 GESTA) CHRISTI 


is strongly running towards greater strictness, and some 
changes in legislation have been made in this direction. 

Perhaps the most striking modern instance of the effect 
of utter freedom of divorce, and liberty of re-marriage, is 
given in the habits and life of the foreign poor in a city 
like New York. Here the Irish or German peasant, being | 
removed from the restraints of home and priesthood, ap- 
plies to his “civil contract” a freedom of action which he 
would not use in any other contract. As the wife grows 
older and less attractive, she is thrown aside for some more 
pleasing companion; the husband migrates to distant 
parts of the country and disappears, and the unhappy 
woman and children are left on the world to struggle as 
they best may. Or again, the wife abandons the husband, 
and he is compelled to leave the children in neglect; or 
marrying again, to place them under that relation, often 
so cruel among the poor, of the step-mother. It is not 
strange that one of the prolific causes of the extraordinary 
crime and misery among children in New York is the 
looseness of the marriage tie.! 

Of course, in a more cultivated class, many causes 
will soften the effects of free divorce. But in the long 
course of years, the influence upon family life and the 
future of children, of weakening the marriage bond, even 
among persons of education, will be parallel to what we 
see of its effects on the poor in American cities. When 
among modern races marriage is even less than a civil 
contract, to be broken not merely by “ mutual consent,” 
but by the whim or fancy of either party, when it can be 
assumed and abandoned as easily as any relation of feel- 
ing or imagination, then will the sacredness have departed 
from many of our homes. Human selfishness and passion 


1 Sce Te Dangerous Classes of New York, p. 41. By the Author. 


MORUREY LiTaO OIVORCE, 311 


will take the place of duty. Children will be left to un- 
certain guidance; the greatest security in modern life 
undermined, and one of our purest wells of happiness 
defiled. When this shall have occurred in the modern 
world a physical degeneracy will commence which will be 
contemporaneous with the moral, and such races will lose 
power and virtue, until, as in the Roman empire, more 
vigorous peoples take their places. 

Tt ist true that.under a theory of free divorce a) very 
happy marriage in favourable circumstances may occur. 
But so a happy concubinage is sometimes known. The 
question is, How will society generally tend if there is 
unlimited license of separation and re-marriage? Human 
selfishness and masculine caprice and passion seem best 
cured by throwing a peculiar sacredness and earnestness 
about marriage, so that it be not lightly entered upon, and 
be loyally carried. through. The home must be made 
secure and stable; children must not be left to uncertain 
care; and each partner must feel constrained to govern 
fancy or selfishness with a view to the loyalty of the 
relation. | 

Notwithstanding the facts we have mentioned, on the 
whole, especially in the Middle States, it may be said that 
the marriage condition is happier and more often founded 
on affection, and that concubinage is less known there 
than anywhere else in the civilized world. Woman nearly 
occupies, in America, the position which Christianity 
seems to assign her—of the moral leader and _ inspirer 
of society and the equal of man in personal rights, with 
the liberty of nearly all possible development of her 
capacities. 

In a State like New York the strictness of the English 
law is tempered by the freedom easily enjoyed by dis- 
satished partners in other States. Marriage, among the 


312 GESTA CHRISTY, 


intelligent classes, is highly reverenced, and not easily 
broken. Only-grave causes are usually held in society 
to justify divorce, and yet there is no absolute yoke in 
the relation. The conscious freedom enjoyed, and the 
sacredness attached to the bond, have combined under 
New York law to make marriages unusually stable and 
often peculiarly happy. There is still too much license 
of divorce, owing to the legislation of other States; and 
the partner who has separated for trivial causes often 
takes the liberty of re-marriage to another too readily. 
The Christian ideal (if we understand it correctly) is not 
yet reached ; yet it is approached. 

As society everywhere advances in morality and refine- 
ment and intelligence, it will more and more draw near 
the model which Christ and His apostles have sketched of 
marriage, to the cas/a connubia of which Lucretius speaks. 
Equal chastity will be expected from man and woman; 
the body will be as “the temple of God”; two natures 
will tend to be one in a relation formed by the Creator 
and esteemed beyond all other relations,—a bond only 
to be broken for extreme causes, so sacred that, if dis- 
solved for light reasons, it is still in conscience held 
binding, 

Legislation, as it advances, will tend in this direction to 
solidify and firmly establish marriage, to make quick di- 
vorces difficult, to throw the burden and penalty of the vio- 
lation of the bond on the guilty one, to protect the children, 
and to give the dissatisfied or disagreeing partners time and 
opportunity for reconciliation ; and yet it will not force an 
unfortunate woman or man, bound to a brutal or unfaithful 
partner, for ever to be in bondage to a relation which has 
no foundation of affection or respect. The laws of the 
future, like the Christian doctrine of marriage, will draw a 
via media between the strictness of the Catholic canon-law 


CONCUBINAGE. : 313 


and the license of Protestant practice and law in regard 
to marriage and divorce. 

In regard to concubinage, Christianity works everywhere 
to extirpate it. It has continually tended through all 
modern history to do away with illicit connections between 
the sexes. In this matter the Church, at certain periods 
of its history, has been fearfully inconsistent with the 
teachings of the Master. At present, however, it leads 
the morality of the world on this subject. To the Faith 
preached in Galilee, Roman law owed its first tinge of 
humanity in regard to the children of these unfortunate 
connections. As we have shown in an earlier chapter, 
Constantine, under the influence of the new ideas in the 
world, legitimated illegitimate children per subsequens ma- 
trimonium, by a subsequent marriage, his object being, ag 
the code states, to break up this permitted habit of semi- 
matrimony.’ Justinian continued and confirmed this 
humane legislation ; and, under the Popes, it was preserved 
by two rescripts of Pope Alexander, in the Decretals? of 
Gregory (1172 A.D. and 1180). This legislation was imi- 
tated in Scotland and in most of Central Europe. Similar 
provisions protecting the unhappy children of unlawful con- 
nections, have been engrafted in the legislation of most of 
the States of the American Union, and in some States even 
a formal declaration of the father, affirming a subsequent 
marriage, is sufficient to legitimate the children, if it be 
filed in court and recorded, 

Flumane progress in the matter of divorce and con- 
cubinage has been more influenced by the teachings of 
Galilee than by any other one cause in history. Yet it is 
evident that civilized society has not at all in general 


 Licita consuetudo semi-matrimonii. (Cod, Lib, 6, tit. 57.) 
Bee ve 17-1: 
8 Schouler. 


314 GST A Grito. 


reached the ideal of purity and .of marriage presented by 
the great Teacher. As mankind becomes better and 
happier it continually approaches that ideal; and the 
perfection of humanity will be almost attained when the 
Christian conception of marriage is realized by man and 
by woman. 


EVAL IE Ry exoov Ts 
DEGRADATION OF WOMAN. 


IT would seem at first thought that one terrible social evil 
existed which Christianity had not only not mitigated, but 
scarcely even touched—the prostitution of women. The 
class of human beings who live by selling that which is 
above all price is still the most hopeless and irredeemab 

under modern civilization. Christ Himself had evidently 
felt a profound compassion for these unfortunate and guilty 
persons; and this example in all ages has led His followers 
to special efforts to improve and save these victims of 
their own folly and poverty and man’s passions. But as 
society has become more and more permeated with the 
Christian sentiment and sense of obligation of purity, 
these persons, who persistently and openly violated it, 
have become more and more sunken by contrast. Their 
own sense of degradation is the measure of the prevailing 
standard of society. When the Greek wives and maidens 
were as they were in the time of Socrates, the Aetairae 
might well be the leaders of society. And when Roman 
married life had reached the low stage of the period of | 
the early empire, legislation to prevent high-born matrons 
from becoming prostitutes would be natural.!. One of the 
safeguards of modern society is in the perhaps exaggerated 
sentiment of contempt and condemnation against those who 


1 Tacitus (Ann. 2. 83). 
315 


316 GESTA CHRISTI. 


are lewd for hire. But this protection around the virtuous 
seems to still more shut out the vicious from the sacred 
circle of purity. Society generally is purified, marriage is 
more sacred, woman is in a higher position of respect and 
influence, but the class of female offenders against sexual 
virtue is even lower than in antiquity. 

But even with this class some great steps in advance 
have been made. There are no longer those, except in 
non-Christian lands, who sacrifice virtue and purity as an 
offering to base ideals of superstition, and become prosti- 
tutes at the shrine of a deity. There are no longer large 
classes of persons, like those under the Roman Empire, 
who as slaves held their virtue at the will of another, or 
were compelled as libidinous actors to live for the lusts of 
men. Neither religion nor law nor social custom compels 
the ‘lost women” to remain as they are. They have no 
unchangeable profession any further than their own weak- 
ness of will fixes it. They are the victims of their own 
idleness or folly or bad habits. 

On the other hand, ail the best influences of society are 
seeking to reclaim them and to diminish this source of so 
many calamities. Christianity has, as it were, only begun 
its century-long struggle with this tremendous social evil. 
If the student reads carefully Plato’s Laws,! he will find 
there a curious passage, already partially quoted in this 
work, where the philosopher of love regards the terrible 
unnatural lusts of men in Greece at that day with some- 
what of the hopelessness that a fervent Christian philo- 
sopher of this century might feel in regard to this vice 
among women. 

Plato believes that certain great moral forces or ideals 
will, in a far distant future, purify society of these morbid 
passions; but to him this result is as far away as, for 


1 Nowmozt, ix. 


REFORM BEGUN. 317 


instance, universal peace is now to the Christian. The 
modern student has seen society almost cleansed of these 
impurities, under the influence of the new ideal before the 
world. So, after many ages, it will be under Christianity 
with woman’s vice and impurity. 

The first great step has been made under the new Faith. 
Woman’s fall could not happen without man’s temptation. 
The duty of masculine purity (though only partially recog- 
nized by Christians) is most clearly taught by Christ. As 
we have said before, He was not alone in preaching this 
doctrine. The stoical moralists had taught it. But in 
every form He and His apostles seck to impress this obli- 
gation on the human conscience. A certain number of 
His followers in every age are so inspired by His spirit, 
that they endeavour “to become pure even as He is pure.” 
This number will continually increase, and their opinion 
and practice will more and more influence society. As 
man becomes pure one great source of temptation will 
be diminished to women who are idle or frivolous or des- 
perate. When the conviction spreads through every com- 
munity, that in this offence, man sins with the woman ; 
and, though the moral evil be not to him as to her, yet 
that he, as she, holds a temple sacred to the Holy Spirit, 
and equally with her has soiled and profaned it; and that 
he, as she, has separated himself from his ideal and Lord, 
and must answer in his own soul, not only for the injury 
he has brought upon himself, but for that ruin he has 
aided to bring upon another,—then will an enormous dyke 
as it were be formed against the spread of prostitution. 

Another great power restraining its increase will be 
the Christian and moral influences which are now thrown 
more and more around the childhood of the working and 
poorer classes. Public women of this kind are not gene- 
rally, as is supposed, the victims of deception and wrong 


318 GESTA CHRISTI, 


by men. They are usually poor girls who have grown up 
without good influences, and not in habits of regular work 
or industry ; they fall early into ways of idleness, among 
bad company, and are ready to earn pleasures and luxu- 
ries by unnatural means. It is this great class of untaught 
and neglected poor children who mainly supply the class 
of prostitutes. Of course there are other elements, but 
these form the immense majority. Now to this class, 
Christianity, under modern methods, offers at once its 
peculiar influences. It holds before these children a 
sublime ideal of purity; it teaches each one her immense 
value in the universe; it trains the little ones to habits 
of industry and daily work; it inculcates purity of per- 
son and heart, and prepares each character for the tough 
struggle of life, and takes the child almost out of the class 
of persons who are exposed to this great vice. 

A remarkable instance is given of the effect of such 
influences on many thousands of very poor children, during 
a space of twenty-five years, in the charitable work of an 
association—the Children’s Aid Society in New York.) 
From the careful reports of this charity, it appears that 
but very few children among the many thousands who go 
forth from the industrial schools of this society, ever fall 
into criminal courses, but become honest and industrious 
working women. 

Now it is quite conceivable that such influences could 
be vastly extended, and everywhere the children of the 
poor brought under this moral discipline and training, 
so that one great source of this evil should be much 
dried up. 

Then, as Christianity prevails in the world, marriage 
will be held in higher and higher esteem, and all irregular 
connections be discouraged, and legislation which inter- 

1 See Dangerous Classes of New York, by the Author. 


= 


EFFECTS OF RELIGION. 319 


feres with early marriage be discountenanced. Moreover, 
the morality of the Gospel works against selfish display, 
luxury and extravagance, which now under modern habits 
so much prevent marriage. Where self-control, sobriety 
and economy are the rule, there early and natural con- 
nections between the sexes will be more the custom. To 
the young man, next to religion, the strongest safeguard 
against vice is a chivalric ideal of woman, and certainly 
the influence of this faith has always been to ae her this 
exalted position. 

The specific Christian influences will be more and more 
to exalt marriage, to make it the perfect example of all hu- 
man relations, to lead the young to sacrifice self-indulgence 
for it, and above all, to present an ideal of purity, for 
both man and woman, in the life and teachings of the 
great Founder of the Faith, which will raise both sexes 
above the reach of unlawful passions or unnatural indul- 
gences, This will not be as in the past an ideal of 
an unnatural and impossible asceticism, but simply of 
purity and self-control. It is entirely possible that all 
society may become as a few, inspired with this religion, 
are now. We cannot say that Christianity has as yet 
made any vast change in regard to this vice. But we can 
say that it has begun changes. We can see that it 
has purified society, that it is redeeming many thousands 
of youth from this evil, and that it has implanted a power 
of resistance and a sense of purity almost unknown before. 
We see clearly that it only needs time to perfect its work- 
ings and to greatly diminish, if not extirpate, one of the 
monster evils of humanity. 


CHAPTER XXVIILI. 
INTERNATIONAL LAW.—ARBITRATION. 


THERE is evidently one field in which the great moral 
forces of. history have had little effect, and where Chris- 
tianity itself at first sight seems a failure; we mean the 
public relations between nations. War still remains the 
most fearful curse upon mankind; it still desolates thou- 
sands of homes, making innumerable orphans and widows, 
destroying in a day the results of long and patient labour, 
and laying up in taxation and the support of armies im- 
mense burdens upon the labouring classes. Nations are 
in the same relations to one another in regard to questions 
of right or property in which the barons of the fourteenth 
century were to each other. As then a dispute throughout 
Europe upon the title to real estate was settled by duels 
and as private gentlemen and individual cities in any 
difference with their neighbours resorted at once to 
“private war,” declared under due formalities, so now 
between peoples, disputes in regard to territory or on 
questions of right and honour are supposed to have but 
one court of decision—the arbitrament of armies. Leaving 
out of view the wars where great principles are involved, | 
like the war for the independence of Hungary, the Franco- 
Austrian struggle for the freedom of Italy, the American’ 
Civil War and others, there are still numerous either use- 


less or unjust contests, such as those of the United States 
320 


EXPENSE OF WAR. 32% 


with the Indian tribes, of Great Britain with inferior races 
like the Chinese, Zulus, and Afghans, sufficient to show 
that Christianity has barely touched international] relations 
among the most highly civilized communities. It is esti. 
mated by De Card that recent wars alone in Europe have 
cost the people fifty milliards (50,000,000,000) of francs. 
The present peace establishment of Europe embraces over 
2,000,000 men, with a liability of 4,000,000 more to be 
called out, and a constant expense to the people of 
#600,009,000 per annum. Every country of Continental 
Europe is eaten up by the taxation necessary on account 
of the hostile position of peoples who have substantially 
the same interests. 

To the Christian Church, international law, or the cus- 
toms and rules of conduct between nations, owes litthes: 
but to the moral and religious principles with which 
Christianity has been slowly impregnating mankind, it 
has a deep obligation and will be more and more indebted. 

It must be remembered that international law, as a body, 
is a creation of the times since Christianity was a living 
force in public affairs. It is true that many of its rules 
and principles are derived from the Roman law, but the 
modern spirit which has especially characterized it since 
Grotius will be seen to be essentially influenced byothe 
new Faith. 

Among ancient peoples, the Greeks appear to have 
had no body of international law which they recognised 
as binding them to other nations. The stranger to 
Preniewas -angeneniy., and vase barbarians a Lhdre were 
indeed customs often acknowledged between their own 
different tribes and States which rested on principles of 
justice and humanity. But even among themselves such 
actions were permitted, as the slaughter of prisoners in 
cold blood, the execution of generals after misfortune in 
ve 


322 GESTA CHRISTI. 


war, the infliction of perpetual slavery on captives, the 
absolute annihilation of hostile cities, the violation of 
women and murder of children after victory, the useless 
punishment of hostages and violence to ambassadors, and 
bloody personal revenge on enemies,! and similar bar- 
barisms. 

The Romans possessed the germs of international law 
in their ‘“Fecial rules” (jura feccalia) or religious customs, 
recognized by the various Italian states in their early 
history, in regard to declaring war and other duties be- 
tween States. It was something that a band of priests 
could restrain warriors and that war could not be made 
without legal forms. The Roman us Gentinum arose 
later, and was not the law of nations in the modern sense, 
nor does it appear that the Romans believed in a code or 
collection of customs and laws between nations which 
would, for instance, restrain Rome itself if it were not 
Roman law. No members of a foreign and. independent 
nation not in alliance with Rome had any rights which 
the Roman tribunals could enforce. Even Justinian’s 
code, in a well known passage,” asserted that a people . 
not in alliance with Rome could keep what it could take 
from the Romans, and that the latter had an equal right 
towards the other. In other words, the natural relation of 
nations to one another was that of hostility. 

The Fus Gentium was gradually extracted from the codes 
and customs of the several provinces and from the Roman 
law, being the common element in both, or that part which 
rested on principles of equity or fairness. It was naturally 
a more liberal code than the civil law, and finally entered 
into and partly absorbed Roman law itself. As Cicero 


1 Ward, Laws of Nations, vol. i. p. 178. 
3 Dig,, Libs xlixt 15,3. 


INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ROME. 323 


says, “the civil law was not always the law of nations, but 
the law of nations must always be the civil law.” 1 

The Stoical jurists, and after them the codifiers of Justi- 
nian’s code, assumed that this common element in the law 
of nations was the jus xaturale, or natural law, so that the 
definition of the law of nations by Gaius’ and Justinian’s 
code would not be a bad statement now. “ What natural 
reason has determined among all men, that among all is 
constituted and called the law of nations.” 2 But in practice 
the Romans scarcely recognised any law of nations binding 
great and weak powers, Rome and the barbarians. There 
is but little trace in their writings or public action of a 
belief in a code of rules and customs obligatory on the 
mutual conduct of Rome and independent nations. 

“Against a public enemy there is always authority,” 3 
was an ancient maxim. “ Whatever I have done in regard 
to enemies of the State, the law of war defends,” * is an 
axiom of the Roman general, according to Livy. Wiceror 
indeed, in a very eloquent passage describes a universal 
law, for all times and nations, one and eternal, governing 
all; but his grand rhetoric did not picture anything which 
existed, or was likely to-.exist, in the Roman world. 

Ward (Laws of Nations) says very justly that the theory 
of the classic nations in regard to international relations 


*. . .« quod civile, non idem continuo gentium : quod autem 
gentium idem civile esse debet. (De Offic., 3, 17.) 

* Quod vero naturaiis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, id apud 
omnes peraeque custoditur, vocaturque Jus gentium, quasi quo jure 
eomnes gentus utuntur. (Fzsz., lib. 1, tit. 2. Gazus, lib. ZeRikt Wz) 

* Adversus hostem, eterna auctoritas. (Zab. Duod. and Cic. de 
Offic.) 

* Quidquid in hostibus feci, jus belli defendit. (Zzv., xxvi. 30.) 

° Neque erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia post hac ; 
sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immu- 
fapilis;ctcs, (Ve fep., 1. ii. ¢, 221) 


324 GESTA CHRISTI. 


was, that men were bound to no duties to one another 
without some express contract, Foreigners could any- 
where be seized, imprisoned, enslaved or killed, without 
any breach of human or Divine laws. | 

Even Justinian’s code seems to allow that a prisoner of 
war may rightly be made a slave.} 

In the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Roman empire 
to the eleventh century, there may be said to have been 
no international law, or only a confusion of customs, some 
of which had been influenced by principles of equity, while 
others rested on barbarism? The Italian States, which 
were especially under the influence of commerce, in the 
twelfth century, were among the first to frame treaties in 
regard to the liberty of the seas and the right of prize in 
the time of peace. The early commercial codes of the 
north of Europe, in the Mediterranean, and of Europeans 
in the East, contained many features of modern inter- 
national law. Piracy, however, was still allowed in the 
time of war. The first check to “private war” on the 
sea was made by privateering, near the beginning of the 
eleventh century, as we shall hereafter detail. | 

One of the first appeals of one nation to the others, as if 
they formed one commonwealth, was in the twelfth cen- 
tury ; and in the thirteenth century we find the good king, 
St. Louis.of France, chosen arbjtrator between Henry 
II]. of England and his barons. In 1356 Edward III. 
made an appeal to “all Christendom” against John of 
France, as if a certain bond united all European peoples. 


Yet so little progress had international right made, that in. 


the reign of St. Louis, we are told by his biographer that 
if two kings were at war and one of them died, the ambas- 
sadors who were sent reciprocally remained prisoners and 


* Et liber homo noster ab eis captus, servus fit et eorum. (Dig., 
lib, xlix, tit. 15, 3) 


== 


BARBARITIES: INVMUIDIDLE | AGES, 325 


slaves! The barbarities of the Middle Ages in warfare 
were equal to those of the worst of the Roman times. The 
Normans are said by historians to have put their prisoners 
to death under terrible tortures ; some were suspended over 
slow fires and hung by their feet or thumbs; some had 
their brains crushed by tight ligatures; some were thrown 
into dungeons with serpents. Female prisoners were 
exposed to the most brutal treatment. The Scotch, in 
their invasion of England under David I., murdered the 
sick and the aged in their beds, infants on the breasts of 
the mother, and priests at the altar. The Italians in their 
invasion of Sicily at the close of the twelfth century were 
equally cruel, burying prisoners alive, burning priests and 
throwing them into the sea. Of the many wars between 
the French and English, an old author describing their 
effects says, “Churches are despoiled ; men everywhere 
murthered or wounded, others put to death or tortured ; 
matrons ravished ; maydes forcibly drawn out of their 
parent’s arms to be deflowered ; towns daily taken, daily 
spoiled, daily defaced ; the riches of the inhabitants carried 
whither the conquerors thinke good; houses and villages 
round about set on fire; no kind of cruelty is left unprac- 
tised.” ? 

Nor were wanting in the Middle Ages prominent indi- 
vidual instances.of similar barbarism. The natural son of 
Frederick II. in 1264,in his war with the Pope, punished 
with mutilation and death all priests taken prisoners. 
Prisoners were not uncommonly either mutilated or killed. 
The old Roman custom or law,? that an enemy who had 


1 Suivant la coutume alors usitée en Payennie comme en Chreiienté 
que quand deux Princes estaient en guerre, si Pun d’eux venoit a 
mourir, les Ambassadeurs qui s’estoient envoyés reciproquement, 
demeuroient prisonniers et esclaves. (Yoinville, Vie de St. Louis.) 

2 Quoted by Ward, in Laws of Nations. 

8 Verum in pace qui pervenerunt ad aiteros, si bellum subito exar- 


326 GESTA “CHRISTI: 


come to another country, even in time of peace, could, if 
war broke out, be enslaved, existed in Europe inthe Middle 
Ages; and the enslavement of prisoners did not cease till 
the middle of the seventeenth century; the treaties in 
that century generally stipulating that prisoners should 
not be sent by their captors to the galleys. 

Among the individual instances of cruelty, it is related 
by the chroniclers that Rufus, son of William the Con- 
queror, cut off the hands and feet of the Welsh prisoners 
taken by him. The Emperor Barbarossa is said to have 
delivered all the prisoners taken in Milan to the ex- 
ecutioner or to have shot them off from military engines, 
These instances of cruelty in that age could be multi- 
plied without limit. Poisoned weapons and missiles were 
used even as late as the fifteenth century. In the same 
century it was a public custom to hang prisoners taken 
in a siege; and it appears to have been a recognised law 
of war that a relieving force, entering a fortified place after 
the siege was commenced, was liable to the severest punish- 
ments. 

Officers who had fought gallantly and were beaten in 
the open field, were often, after capture, executed by the 
victor. Ambassadors were frequently killed on their mis- 


sions of peace. In fact, it may be said that from the time 


of Cesar till the fifteenth century there was very little 
progress in the laws of war. Christianity had not so 
touched the peoples of Europe as even to soften super- 
ficially the barbarism of ancient times. 

The only redeeming features were an indirect result 
of Christianity—the compassion and courtesy introduced 
by chivalry and the ransoming of prisoners among the 
knights. But these were humanities which were ex- 


sisset, eorum servi efficiuntur, apud quos jam hostes suo facto depre- 
henduntnrs (72) xlixic15,\12)) 


les ' 


ENSLAVEMENT OF PRISONERS. 327 


ercised only among a class. They did not reach the 
common soldier, or benefit the peasant and_ labourer. 
Fearful acts of atrocity against peasants and citizens by 
the kings and generals of the Middle Ages are often 
reported. | 

The first great change was in the treatment of prisoners. 
Suarez, in the sixteenth century, states that the old custom 
of the Koman law of nations, of making slaves of prisoners, 
had been changed in the Church, and was no longer ob- 
served among Christians! An old English historian, Sir 
Thomas Smith (1570 A.D.) thus states the reform :— 
“ Howbeit since our Realme hath received the Christian 
religion, which maketh us all brethren in Christ, conservos 
(fellow-servants), men beganne to have conscience to hold 
in captivitie and such extra-bondage, him whom they must 
acknowledge to be their brother; that is, who looketh in 
Christ and by Christ to have equal portion with them in 
the gospel and salvation.” * 

Ayala writing in the sixteenth century says, that in 
the wars of Christians, the enslavement of prisoners is not 
permitted, nor perpetual imprisonment, and that all such 
wars are only civil wars, because all are “brethren in 
Giristie® 

It was not, however, till the treaty of Miinster (1648) 
that it became the general custom of European nations to 
rélease all prisoners at the end of the war, without ransom. 
This important step in humane progress, it should be 


1 Sic enim Jus Gentium de servitute captivorum in bello justo, in 
Ecclesia mutatum est, et inter Christianos, id non servatur. (De /egz- 
bus. Suarez.) Ward, vol. ii. p. 27. 

2 Commonwealth of England, previously cited. 

3 Et in prima receptum est ut in bellis Christianorum servitus non 
sit. Haec enim bella non plus quam civilia sint quia omnes in 
Christi fratres, etc. (Lib. iii-ix., De Jure et Bellicts offictts, 1597.) 
See also p. 54, 2b¢d.,and Alberict Gentilis, De Jure Belli, Oxford, 1877. 


328 GESTA CHRISTI. 


noted, is coincident with the revival of pure Christianity 
in England and many portions of the Continent. Previous 
to this treaty, in 1630 we find a distinct allusion to the 
slavery of prisoners of war in the treaty of Madrid be- 
tween Spain and England (Art xxviii). “Prisoners 
taken in war on both sides, although condemned to the 
galleys, shall be set at liberty and dismissed upon payment 
of their expenses by those who are not in the galleys, and 
upon payment of their ransom by those who had formerly 
agreed to it.” , 

Many of the non-Christian’ nations held that no faith 
- was to be kept with those not of their own belief. Even 
the Koran taught this! The Mohammedan powers in 
the north of Africa enslaved all shipwrecked persons and 
prisoners, and tortured their captives. Only direct treaties 
with European powers? secured the abolition of these 
barbarities. 

The Turks in the sixteenth century treated even am- 
bassadors with inhumanity, though European customs had 
become gradually humane towards these officials, and 
resident ambassadors were permitted to dwell with safety. 
in the country of a rival or enemy. The Spaniards 
imitated the Turks in putting prisoners to death or send- 
ing them to the galleys; even in the declaration that no 
faith was to be kept with heretics, 

It was not till 1828, that Turkey and Persia agreed to 
exchange prisoners according to the custom of Christian 
nations.® 

One of the earliest expositions of international duties 
was made about 1506 A.D. by Prior Honoré Bonnor, in a 


1 Hedaya, ix. 3. 

* Treaty with Algiers in 1686, and with Tripoli and Tunis. Ward, 
VOLT pga te 

* Manning’s Laws of Nations, p. 162. 


ka 


WARS AGAINST INFIDELS. 329 


work called “L’arbre des Batailles.”! This writer shows 
strongly the influence of his professed faith, in his recom- 
mendations: he teaches that battles should be avoided on 
holy days; that those dying in unjust wars do not go to 
heaven, and claims the exemption of Churchmen, pilgrims, 
the sick and infirm from the duties and evils of war. He 
even permits the students of belligerent powers to visit the 
universities of one another during the struggle. 

The early writers on international law seem to have 
been in advance of the practice of the Church in respect 
to wars with non-Christian nations. The author quoted 
above says: “By what right can we make war against 
Sarassins or other infidels? I will prove that we cannot 
Moma lawinlly-for their ‘being infidels «.)\ 2+. Moreover 
we should not and cannot, according to the Holy Scrip- 
tures, oblige infidels to embrace the holy faith and baptism, 
but must leave them with the free will which God has 
given them.”? Ayala makes a similar humane protest 
(lib. 1-28). 

A striking instance of the influence of Christianity in 
the barbarous period of Europe, is contained in Alcuin’s 
letter to Charlemagne, wherein he reminds him to show 
mercy to prisoners, even as God will show mercy to him? 


Grotius—The great reforms in modern international 
law, due especially to the spirit of Christianity, began in 
great part with the eminent Dutch publicist, Grotius, early 
in the seventeenth century. He thus states the motives 
which prompted him to his great work: 


“For I saw, prevailing through the Christian world, a license in 


-1 Larbre des Batatlles, 1506, Lyon. 
2 Jbid., quoted by Digby, 3,153 (JZor. Cath.). 
3 Memor sit pietas vestra captivorum, etc. (AZ. Ep. 90). 


330 GESTA CHRISTI 


making war, of which even barbarians would have been ashamed ; 
recourse being had to arms for slight reason or no reason, and when 
arms were once taken up, all reverence for divine and human law was 
thrown away, just as if men were thenceforth authorized to commit 
all crime without restraint.”4 ss, 


The Law of Nature, on which, as is well known, he 
especially bases his Law of Nations, he ascribes to God, 
and speaks of express laws of God as “restraining 
passion,” and touches the key-note of modern humane 
progress in these words : 


“ The Sacred History doth not a’little provoke us to mutual love by 
teaching that we are all of us born of the same first parents.” ? 


The reforms of the laws of war in modern times have 
been especially in the direction of limiting, so far as 
possible, its evil effects to the combatants, of allowing no 
damage which did not conduce to the purpose of the war, 
and of abolishing the dictum of barbarism, that if two 
nations are at war, all the citizens of each must be also 
enemies. The last principle still lingers in the writings of 
many publicists, but Grotius was too much imbued with 
the Religion of Love to be willing to recognise it. Of 
war, some of his opinions are still worth quoting and 
remembering. 


“We Christians are especially taught to expose our own lives to the 
greatest perils that can be, to preserve the lives and procure the ever- 
lasting welfare of others, in imitation of our great Lord and Master. 

How inuch more reason have we to forbear the prosecution of 
our just rights when they cannot be obtained without the effusion of so 
much blood, and the destruction of so many men’s lives and estates, 
besides other mischiefs which war usually brings with it.” “When 
we consider that by the Hebrew Law, he who had slain a man even 


a ay a 


’ De Fure Belli, etc., Hugo Grotius (preliminary statement). Evart’s 
trans. 1782. 
2 P retace. 


Ye oo 


GROTIUS” IDEASTINFADVANCE (OF HIS AGE. ~331 


without intending it, was obliged to fly ; that God forbade His temple 
to be built by David, who is related to have carried on private wars, 
because he had shed much blood; that even among the ancient Greeks, 
those who had stained their hands with manslaughter, even without 
fault, had need of expiation, how can any one fail to see, especially 
among Christians, what an unhappy and disastrous thing and how 
strenuously to be avoided, is a war, even when not unjust” (p. 283). 


“ Good faith,” which was at that day so generally violated 
in the relations of nations, is thus urged, on both secular 
and religious grounds : 


“ And, therefore, it is especially the office of kings to cherish good 
faith, first for the sake of conscience, and then for the sake of good 
opinion, by which the authority of kingdoms stands. Let them be 
certain, therefore, that they who instil into them acts of deceit, are 
themselves the deceivers they would make them. Doctrines cannot 
long work well which make men unfit for society with man, and we 
may add, hateful to God” (c. 25, t. 11). 


His views of privateering have anticipated the reforms 
of this century, and are evidently guided by the Christian 
theory of life. 


“ But even if justice, strictly speaking, be not violated, there may be 
an offence against loving our neighbour, especially in a Christian 
aspect, as if it appears that such privateering will not hurt the general 
body of the enemy, or their king, or the guilty portion of them, but the 
innocent ; and it will inflict upon them calamities which it would be 
cruel to inflict even on those who are personally indebted to us. And 
if besides this, such a privateering is not likely to conduce either to 
the termination of the war, or to any notable damage of the enemy’s 
public power, then it must be considered unworthy of a right-minded 
man, and especially a Christian, to make a gain in this way out of the 
unhappiness of the times” (c. 18, t. 14). 


He opposes from religious grounds that rule of the 
Law of Nations, derived from Roman Law, that prisoners 
should be slaves. 


“ But even among Christians, it is universally agreed that being at 
war among themselves, they that are taken prisoners are not made 


332 CP re NM Ol o Se (LIE 


slaves, so as to sell them, or to enforce them to servile offices, or to 
impose upon them such things as they usually do in slavery.’ /, uae 
And this at least (though but a small matter), hath the Christian 
religion brought to perfection, which Socrates attempted to have done 
among the Greeks but could not. . . . That suchas are taken in 
war, are kept in safe custody till their ransom be paid” (6.3) tyyaae 
- + . “But in our days, not only among Christians, but even among 
Mohammedans, this right of captivity without the time of War, 1S worn 
out of use. The necessity being taken away by virtue of that con- 
nection or affinity, wherein nature hath joined us, which is now re- 
acknowledged to be between all mankind ” (CABRO uO), 


In harmony with his faith, he exhorts humanity towards 
women, clerks, farmers, merchants, and to all in battle who 
cry quarter, or offer to yield. He.quotes the lines 


“ Quique suos cives quod signa adversa tulerunt 
Non credat fecisse nefas ! 


And declares “cives” to mean not neighbours of the same 
town or country, but citizens of the same world (3, 11, hes} 
as if he anticipated the modern doctrine of international 
law, that governments may be enemies, and yet their 
citizens not hostile. 


“All duels,” he adds, “and trials by combatants, seeing that they 
are of no use, either to the decision of right or the ending of a war, 
but merely for ostentation of strength, are not only repugnant to our 
Christian profession, but to the laws of humane SOCIety 1 (Cas Gre mram 
‘“No-useless damage is to be done; and therefore what some divines 
have observed and taught, I must needs assent unto, that it is the 
duty of such commanders as would be thought Christians (as far as in 
them lies) to intercede for, and hinder the sacking and pillaging of 
towns and cities, especially of such things in them as add but little to 
the conquest being taken away, so that such acts Christian clemency 
and justice itself doth abhor. Surely there is a greater tie and obli- 
gation among Christians than there ever was anciently among the 
Greeks,” 


The great Christian publicist urges also to spare the 
property of those who have in no way offended as the 


GROTIUS ON ARBITRATION. 333 


authors of the war, “for the rules of charity are of larger 
extent than those of justice ” (3, 14, 4). 

The violation of women, so common after the assault of 
fortified places, he condemns as contrary to the laws of 
war. On the latest conquest of Christianity and humane 
principle in the field of international relations, | 

Arbitration, the Dutch publicist of the seventeenth 
century is in harmony with the most advanced views of 
the nineteenth century. He says,— 


“For if, both Jews and Christians have thought fit to appoint 
arbitrators among themselves to determine all controversies to the 
‘ntent that brothers should not go to law with unbelievers, how much 
more reason is there that such arbitrators or judges should be chosen 
by us to prevent mischief far greater than going to law, namely: spoil, | 
rapine,murther, yea and sometimes desolation, which are the unhappy 
concomitants of cruel war.” “ And indeed, it is very unfit for princes 
who profess themselves to be followers of Christ, to rush into arms one 
against another with so much bitterness, seeing that there are other 
means found out to compromise their quarrels” (p. 463). “And for 
this as for many other reasons, it will be very convenient, nay 
necessary, that constant diets and conventions of Christian princes 
should be held where, by the prudence and moderation of such as 
are not interested, all controversies may be composed; yea, and that 
some expedient may be found, to force both parties to accept of peace 
upon equal and just terms.” ‘ 


And the great publicist closes his immortal work with 
these memorable words : 


“A safe and honoured peace is not too dearly bought if it may be 
had by foregoing as well the offending as the charges and damages of 
war, especially to us Christians, to whom our great Lord and Master 
hath bequeathed Peace as His last legacy.” “God, who alone can do 
it, instil these things into the hearts of those who manage the affairs 
of Christendom !” 


We have dwelt thus at length on the views of Grotius, 
because they have affected the relations of nations more, 
probably, than the writings of any publicist before or since 


334 GES TAC ALOU a 


his time, and because they are so distinctly the fruit of 
Christian forces in the world. 


Right over Heathen Territory.—One of the curses of the 
world has been the supposed right of nominally Christian 
peoples to take possession of heathen territory, and despoil 
non-Christian tribes. The Church has always supported 
this right. The famous bull of Pope Alexander VI. (1493) 
gave up in effect all the lands .in North and South 
America, 1co leagues west of the line of the Azores, to 
the empire of Spain; and this supposed right was the 
source of endless wars and oppression, and the slaughter 
and slavery of thousands of Indians. 

Queen Elizabeth gave a similar title to Sir Humphrey 
Gilbert over certain “remote heathen and barbarous lands” 
in North America. Though the Church was false to its 
Master in. the spirit of these claims, the great writers on 
international law, imbued with His spirit, were nearer the 
truth. Grotius objects to any power or claim of the 
Christian Church over remote and heathen peoples. 

Bonnor, a still earlier writer on this topic, declares, as we 
have seen, that war cannot lawfully be made by Christian 
powers against Saracens, merely on account of their faith. 
Victoria? (about 1557 A.D.) says that the Pope has no 
temporal authority over the barbarous Indians or other 
infidels, and that Christian princes have no right, merely 
from the authority of the Pope, to coerce barbarians or to 
punish them.? Ayala holds the same views, and Alberici 
Gentilis. 


1 Parbre des batailles, c. 356 

2 Papa nullum potestatem temporalem habet in barbaros Indos, 
neque in alios infideles. (Aelectio de [nd., 2, 6.) 

% Principes Christiani non possunt etiam auctoritate papae coercere 
barbaros, etc. 


PRIVATEERING. 33 


a 


Puffendorf advocated equally liberal principles. 

It cannot be said that the Spirit of the Great Teacher 
has as yet much affected modern international law on this 
important topic. Still a beginning has been made in 
teaching universal justice as obligatory from Christian to 
heathen, and from a great power to a weak. 


Progress in Modern International Law.—Progress in 
international law we shall now proceed to test by the 
humane changes, both in practice, custom and law, shown 
in the public settlements, codes, treaties and acts of nations 
of the nineteenth century, and in the views of eminent 
publicists. The high-water mark of humane practice and 
theory in public law in this century is probably best shown 
in two documents—the Code of Instructions issued by 
the Government of the United States during the great 
Civil War, to their officers and soldiers, compiled by Prof. 
Lieber, and the proposed Code for a Law of Nations, 
compiled by Prof. Bluntschli, who has himself borne so 
distinguished a part in the practical application of these 
Christian and humane principles in the arbitration scttle- 
ment of Geneva between Great Britain and the United 
States. From these two sources we shall attempt to 
ascertain what the Christian system has already accom- 
plished in public law and custom, and what it proposes to 
accomplish in the future. 

Privateering—Apart from these, we will first examine, 
however, the changes made in “ Private War” on the seas, 
or Privateering. Under the combined influences of the 
religious spirit and the mercantile habits, Private War on 
land, especially in Germany, as we have seen, was put an 
end to, and Courts of Arbitration (Austrage) in the twelfth 
and thirteenth centuries decided between the incessant 
contests and disputes of separate cities, counties and 


336 GESTA CHRISTI. 


provinces, until at length Law took the place of Force. 
Private War or. piracy, however, still lingered on the sea, 
and individual merchants and different sea-ports were 
obliged to associate together to defend themselves from 
incessant robbery and plundering by corsairs. 

The first great check to this was caused in the end of 
the fourteenth century, by the issuing of letters of marque 
or reprisal by various princes, authorizing certain indi- 
viduals to plunder on the high seas in time of peace. 
Privateering was thus originally in the interest of public 
order. The first law in the history of France authorizing 
privateering appeared in 1400, and distinctly characterized 
it as a means of preventing Private War, where indi- 
viduals took vengeance in their own hands. 

In the same century similar authorizations were issued 
by the Low Countries, England and various powers. 

An English Act of Parliament (1414) required privateers 
to bring their prizes to an English port, and to make 
declaration of capture to the justices of the peace, under 
penalty of confiscation of the prize and the captor. 

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, privateering 
was often well regulated, and, owing to the comparative 
unimportance of commerce then, did not attain to so great 
and injurious a development as in the succeeding centuries, 
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the com- 
merce of both neutral and belligerent powers suffered 
immensely from this species of robbery. The Christian 
spirit (as the words of Grotius show) was always opposed 
to it. Isolated efforts were made to abolish it. Thus in 
1675, Holland and Sweden make a treaty, agreeing not to 


1 Aucun . . . ases propres despens pour porter guerre 4 nos 
ennemis ce sera par le congé et consuitement de nostre dit amiral ou 
son lieutenant. L’Ordonnance sur le fatct de Vamirandé (Hautefeuzlle, 
vol. ii. p. 340). 


PRIVATEE RING: 337 


issue letters of marque, but this does not appear to have 
been a permanent agreement. In her wars with Turkey be- 
tween 1767—74, Russia did not employ privateers. In the 
eighteenth century, privateering had become an organized 
piracy, and almost every treaty attempted, but in vain, to 
restrain it. In that century an American, who though 
often called an unbeliever, was filled with the truest spirit 
of Christianity, has the credit of bringing about one of the 
first important treaties which abolished it. 


“Tt is for the interest of humanity in general,” says Franklin in 
a public despatch to the British Commissioner in 1783, “that the . 
occasions of war and the inducements to it, should be diminished. If 
rapine is abolished, one of the encouragements of war is taken away, 
and peace therefore more likely to continue and be lasting. The 
practice of robbing merchants on the high seas, a remnant of the 
ancient piracy, though it may be accidentally beneficial to public 
persons, is far from being profitable to all engaged in it, or to the 
nation that authorizes it.”? 


And again, 


“The United States though better situated than any other nation 
to profit by privateering, are, so far as in them lies, endeavouring to 
abolish the practice by offering in all their treaties with other powers, 
an article engaging solemnly that in case of a future war, no privateer 
shall be commissioned on either side, and that merchant ships shall 
pursue their voyages, unmolested.” ? 


Through Franklin’s influence, the treaty between Prussia 
and the United States in 1785, contained the well-known 
clause in which each power gave up the right of commis- 
sioning privateers against the other, in case of war. This 
provision however was not. revived in the renewal of the 
treaty in 1790. 

So well entrenched was this practice, that a distinguished 


1} Letter to Mr. Oswald, British Commissioner (Franklin's Writings, 
vol. ii. p. 485 ; ix. pp. 41, 267). 
2 Letter of Franklin, 1785. 


333 GESTA CHRISTI 


French publicist (Hautefeuille) even in this century ven- 
tured to say, “The opinion generally adopted on the 
utility of privateering against an enemy, and especially, 
the object not avowed but real, the ruin of neutral nations, 
will always prevent a certain nation from consenting to 
the abolition of a practice, upon which it founds its mari- 
time greatness.”! This publicist might have lived to see 
“a certain nation” taking part in the congress which 
abolished it. Still it is to be admitted that the general 
policy of Great Britain up to this century has been adverse 
to humane progress in maritime law, with reference to 
privateering, blockade, and the law of contraband. Her 
course has certainly tended to make war “ bellum omnium 
contra omnes” (a war of all against all) instead of limiting 
it, under the modern and more reasonable view. 

The great reform in international law, as limiting the 
effects of war, dates from the Congress of Paris, 1856, 
wherein all the great Powers of Europe, together with 
Turkey and, later, forty other States, agreed to the abolition 
of privateering, and to the rules which protected neutral 
commerce,? and confined wars as far as_ practicable to 
belligerents. Unfortunately for the fame of the United 
States as a pioneer in humane progress, it will be remem- 
bered that her government refused to accept the rule 
abolishing privateering, unless there were accompanied 
with it a stipulation of the inviolability of private property 
on the sea, excepting only contraband of war. This last 
is a reform which, as is the case with the partial protection 
of private preperty on land, requires the slow action of 


1 Tes Droits des nations neutres, vol. il. p. 340. 

2 That the neutral flag covers an enemy’s goods, and neutral goods 
are not seizable among an enemy’s goods—contraband of war in both 
cases being excepted ; and that a blockade, to be real, must be 
effective. 


INVIOLABILITY OF PRIVATE MARITIME PROPERTY. 339 


Christianized opinion. Whether the American government 
were sincere in urging it at that time, is at least open to 
question. At this time, there can be no doubt that the 
American people are heartily in favour of it. The mercan- 
tile community of Continental Europe, especially in Ger- 
many, urged this reform in the years 1859 and 1860, with 
much enthusiasm. It was presented and voted on favour- 
ably in many legislatures. There is little doubt that a 
future year, not far distant, will see its general adoption. 
It rests on the reasonable idea, that war as a terrible and 
barbarous Court of Arbitrament, should do no needless 
damage, but only what furthers the decision and determines 
the final issue. 

The United States during the war of the rebellion 
offered to accede to the Declaration of Paris, without the 
condition it had before demanded. The proposed separate 
conventions, however, on this subject fell through. No 
letters of marque were issued by the American govern- 
ment during the civil war, though authorized by Congress, 

The German and French governments in the war of 
1876, held to their agreement and employed no privateers. 
Prof. Bluntschli in his proposed code (No. 670), declares it 
to be an article of modern international law, that priva- 
teering is abolished. } 

Inviolability of private maritime property.—The inviola- 
bility of private property on the sea was admitted in the 
treaty to which we have already referred—that of 1785 
between Prussia and the United States: and was recog- 
nised in treaties of the South American States, in 1851 and 
1856. In the wars of Great Britain and France with China, 
the right of maritime capture was suspended.! In March 
1865, the Emperor of the French made public restoration 
of such private vessels, belonging to Mexican citizens, as 


1 Field’s Code, p. 530. 


340 GESTA CHRISTI. 


had been condemned by prize courts, and the proceeds of 
which had not been finally adjudicated upon. European 
-governments have often at the close of wars, restored 
captured ships and formed mixed commissions to ascertain 
the damages incurred. In 1861, a treaty was framed 
between France and Peru, which exempted all private 
property from capture The same principle was admitted 
by Prussia, Italy and Austria in the war of 1866: in 1868, 
the parliament of Germany passed a resolution, inviting 
the chancellor to obtain’ the acknowledgment of the 
safety of private property on the sea, during war; no 
public acknowledgment however was obtained. In the 
Franco-German war of 1870, King William in his procla- 
mation of 18th July, declares that French merchant ships 
can neither be brought in nor captured by the Federal 
marine. This advanced measure however was not re- 
sponded to by the French government, so that before the 
close of the war, the German military authorities believed 
themselves obliged to suspend this rule. The French 
Government of National Defence however (28th Oct. 1870) 
expressed the hope that the progress of ideas would in 
this matter ultimately soften the evils of war.’ | 

In July, .1870,: the’ Secretary of State of ‘thes Dimites 
States publicly gave utterance to the expectation, that 
the people would soon have the satisfaction of seeing the 
principle universally recognised of the abolition of mari- 
time prizes. 

The objections made to this reform, even by so enlight- 
ened a publicist as Dana, seem of little weight. Modern 
wars are of so concentrated and terrible a character, that 
the damage done to individual property on the sea, has 
little influence on the issue. It is merely a useless damage, 
which modern humanity condemns, even toward an enemy. 


1 Field’s Code, art. 846. 2 Bluntschiz, 665 n. 


INIITOLABITIIYQO hee Rie Es CRROPER ITY: 341 


These two great reforms then—the abolition of pri- 
vateering and the inviolability of private property on the 
sea—may be considered as almost won by the humane 
influences working in the world under Christianity. The 
principle which lies at the base of this and similar reforms, 
is one which will be more and more recognised by all those 
truly feeling the modern teachings of humanity : the prin- 
ciple that war is between states and not individuals. War, 
like the “judicial duel” of the Middle Ages, is a process, 
terrible and barbarous indeed, whereby justice is sought 
between two contestants. The citizens of each state are 
only considered as enemies, when they take a personal 
part in the struggle, or discharge public duties It is true 
that many eminent publicists, American and English, do 
not admit this principle. According to Sir J. Nicholl, 
“There could be no such thing as a war for arms anda 
peace for commerce.’ Twiss, in his “ Law of Nations,’ 
says with more antithesis than truth, “because private 
war is inconsistent with public peace, it follows that 
‘public war is equally inconsistent with private peace” ; 
Vattel (book III. c. 5) declares all the citizens of belligerent 
nations, enemies, even the women and children; and 
Kent states that all citizens of belligerents are in hostility 
with one another. 

Modern practice however under the influence of “the 
enthusiasm of humanity” is more and more conforming 
itself to the humane principle. Even as far back as 
the French Revolution, Portalis, minister of the Republic, 
uttered these remarkable words at the opening of the 
Council of Prizes: “Between, two or,.more) belligerent 
nations, the individuals of which those nations are com- 
posed are only enemies by accident; they are not so 
as men; they are not so even as citizens; |they are so 


WI BU schtis iN OS15 20, 75,32) CLC 


342 GESTA CHRISTI. 


only as soldiers.”! In the war of 1870, King William of 
Germany proclaimed: “I make war against French 
soldiers not against French citizens,’ assuring the citizens 
of protection to their property, so long as they did not 
indulge in acts of hostility against the German troops. 

The New Codes—The American Instructions and Prof. 
Bluntschli’s Code, forbid putting human beings to death 
in war, without object or utility, or the wounding, tor- 
turing, maltreating or enslaving a prisoner, or violating 
or assailing women.2 Both demand the protection of the 
religion, the language, the intellectual culture and honour 
of the vanquished.2 When one recalls the bloody wars of 
the past, whereby one form of religion was to be forced 
on a people dissenting, the advance in modern interna- 
tional customs is made clear to the most doubting. Both 
of these codes forbid all carnage and destruction which 
does not tend to the re-establishment of justice—the 
object of war. Even the killing of an armed enemy use- 
lessly is forbidden.4 Under the general principle of which 
we have spoken, the plundering of property in an enemy’s 
country ® is absolutely forbidden by the more advanced 
rules of modern international law, excepting it be the 
fortune of the belligerent state itself, the arms and equip- 
ment of the conquered soldiers, and articles contraband 
of war. There is still also left in question the plunder- 
ing of the froperty of citizens in a place taken by assault, 
and the right of maritime prizes; but both these barbarous 
privileges of war may be said to be passing away. All 
public buildings for scientific, esthetic or philanthropic 


1 Bluntschli, No. 531. 

2 Amer. Instr., 16, 23, 42. Bluntschli, No. 574. 
8A mer lust, 37. “Liuittschits NO. 579. 

4 Amer. Instr., 08. Bluntschlt, No. 579 

§ Jbid., No. 657. | 


THE NEW CODES. 313 


purposes are required to be respected in an enemy’s 
country; and it is no longer according to international 
usage! to carry off works of art from a conquered country 
or to sell them to defray the expenses of the war. It is 
true that many of the reforms spoken of above have been 
only carried out in the practice of one or two nations, 
or are merely proposals of eminent publicists. Still the 
whole body of international law is merely the expression 
of the moral ideas and principles of leading nations with 
regard to their relations, without any fixed authority but 
custom, and no basis but justice or the highest utility. 
The theories of eminent writers resting on the strictest 
morality, and above all, the practice of any one nation, 
must profoundly influence all nations. 

One of the terrible abuses of war is in “reprisals.” 
Humanity and religion have as yet scarcely influenced 
these. The American Instructions contain indeed excellent 
sentiments on this subject, and they were not violated 
by the United States during the civil war. “ Civilized 
nations,” says Art. 27, “acknowledge in retaliations the 
sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to 
his opponent no other means of securing himself against 
the repetition of barbarous outrage. Retaliation will there- 
fore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but 
only as a means of protection and retribution, and more- 
over cautiously and unavoidably ; that is to say, retaliation 
shall only be resorted to after careful enquiry into the real 
occurrence and the character of the misdeeds that may 
demand retribution. Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation 
removes the belligerents farther and farther from the miti- 
gating rules of a regular war, and by rapid steps leads 
them to the internecine wars of savages.” (Art. 28.) 

Prof, Bluntschli is equally humane in his view of this 

1 Bluntschit, No. 650. Amer. Instr., 36. 


344 GESTA ‘CHRISTI. 


terrible measure! The recent European conventions have 
however been able in no degree to mitigate the law of: 
reprisals, and they remain the great cruelty of war. 

Three recommendations are now made from various _ 
quarters, as to changes in international customs which will 
tend to prevent collisions and limit war. They are first, 
that the right of blockade be limited to naval arsenals and 
places defended by armed forces. This would leave trade 
in food or similar articles with small and undefended ports, 
open and undisturbed. Another is that the definition of 
“contraband” should be -restricted to articles intended 
directly for. war, such as guns and ammunition. This 
again would render trade freer, and preserve non-combat- 
ants from much annoyance and suffering, A third is, that 
the right of search be restricted so as only to touch contra- 
band articles, and impede efforts to break a blockade. All 
these are in the line of modern reforms, 

Lhe Wounded.—N othing disgraced the humanity of the 
past, like the neglect and cruelty practised towards the 
wounded in war. Under modern law, the ambulances and 
military hospitals for the wounded are held to be neutral 
property, and are respected and protected by the belli- 
gerents. In 1864, a convention was held at Geneva for 
the amelioration of the fate of the wounded during military 
campaigns ; and this compassionate effort led the series of 
international movements, one of the latest fruits of the 
Christian spirit, designed to alleviate the evils of war, An 
agreement was signed and adopted by the Swiss Con- 
federation, the United States of America, and nearly all 
the Great Powers of Europe, having for its object to 
neutralize everything employed in the care of the wounded. 
This agreement was adopted by Austria after the war of 
1806, and by Russia in 1867. In a conference, held at 


1 Bluntschit, No. 502, ete. 


CARE OF THE WOUNDED, 345 
‘ 

Geneva, in 1868 of the principal European States, this 
humane agreement was extended to the care of the 
wounded on the sea. The duty of both belligerents to 
provide, so far as is practicable, even for wounded 
enemies, is now a recognised feature of international law, 
and may be considered as the first public effort in the 
history of mankind to carry out one of the foundation 
rules of Christianity, “ Love your enemies.” 

The care of the wounded in the American civil war, and 
the Franco-German war, by private associations of philan- 
thropic persons working in combination with the govern- 
ments, is one of the latest practical fruits of religion, and 
has relieved an untold amount of human misery. 

The Convention of St. Petersburg in 1868, entered into 
on the proposal of Russia, bound the leading European 
Powers to greater humanity. It limited the objects of war 
Mio weaken the military forces. of the, enemy: that for 
this purpose, “it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible 
number of men; that this object would be exceeded by 
the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the 
sufferings of disabled men or render their death inevitable ; 
that the employment of such arms would therefore be 
contrary to the laws of humanity.” The Great Powers 
accordingly renounced the employment of projectiles, 
explosive or charged with inflammable substances, below 
a given weight. 

The drift of all international policy in regard to neutral 
powers has been in the peaceful direction, and therefore 
in the channels which religion would suggest. War is as 
much as possible to be limited in its evils. As we have 
already said, the abolition of privateering will lessen to an 
immense extent the curses of war to those who are engaged 
in peaceful occupations. The customary notice now given 
to merchant vessels, allowing them several weeks to depart 


3.46 GESTA CHRISTI. 


after the declaration of war, is a reform in a similar 
direction. The Rules of Paris (1856) have settled the 
dispute of ages in favour of neutral powers. A free ship 
carries a free cargo, and a free cargo cannot be seized on 
an enemy’s ship. Blockade can no longer annoy a whole 
world of peaceful persons, any farther than it is a real 
blockade. 

The British Government, among others, have been ready 
to acknowledge that the progress of civilization has brought 
about stricter obligation in regard to neutral supplies to 
belligerents,! and the duty of limiting war to the smallest 
extent possible. 

Arbitration.—The highest result of the Christian spirit, 
as seen in public affairs in this century, is the disposition 
to settle disputes and prevent war, by arbitration. The 
great reform of the Austrage in the Middle Ages was 
the beginning of modern civilization, or the era in which 
law and courts took the place of arms between individuals 
and opposing cities. It is by no means improbable that 
the arbitration of the nineteenth century is also the begin- 
ning of a higher Christian civilisation, when international 
law and international courts shall take the place of war 
and force in the settlement of disputes between nations. 
As it may be supposed, settlement of public disputes by 
arbitration is not entirely a modern discovery. While the 
instincts of right and justice existed, there must always 
have been a possibility of such a settlement. Among old 
instances, is that of Henry II. of England between the 
States of Castile and Navarre—a decision contained in 
twenty-eight articles ;* and another according to the latest 
proposals of international jurists, between the Emperor 


1 Despatch of Earl Granville to the Prussian Government, Sept. 
15th, 1870. 
2 Rymer’s Fadera, p. 48. 


ARBITRATION. 347 


Frederick and certain cities of Lombardy (1158 A.D.). 
The question was as to the justice of his claims to be 
the successor of Augustus and Charlemagne, and the 
arbitration was made by four professors of the School 
of Bologna Even as far back as the sixteenth century, 
different kings of European States are found determining 
difficulties by this reasonable mode. In one instance 
(1546), the Kings of France and England settled a dis- 
pute in regard to a large sum of money by a reference 
of the matter to four learned jurisconsults, an instance 
of a practice to become common, of referring matters of 
international law to private students of the science. Sub- 
jects more difficult to settle than differences about money 
were referred in that century to arbiters. The King of 
Spain, and Switzerland, decided a dispute in regard to the 
boundaries of Franche Comté by arbitration.2 Even the 
claims of a sovereign power were referred to a foreign 
decision ; as when the Archduke of Austria and the Duke 
of Wiirtemberg, each claiming a certain county (Mont- 
beliard), laid the litigation before the Parliament of 
Grenoble.® 

It is to the credit of both Great Britain and the 
United States, that they resorted to arbitration in one 
of their first treaties. After the Independence of the 
American Colonies, difficulties arose between them and 
the mother country as to the north-eastern boundary of 
the Union. By the Treaty of 1794, the dispute was to be 
finally decided by Commissioners chosen in the follow- 
ing manner: one by the King of Great Britain, another 
by the President of the United States with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, and the third—in case of disagree- 


1 Wheaton. 
2 LD) Arbitrage International, De Card, p. 19. 
bid. 


348 GES LTA CHRIST. 


ment between the two—to be chosen by the above Com- 
missioners. Two other Commissioners were appointed to 
determine indemnities due the subjects of each power, for 
damages. In this treaty is undoubtedly indicated that 
greatest practical exemplification in modern times of 
humane principles—the settlement by the Geneva Arbitra- 
tion. 

Mediation.—The famous Conference of Paris (1856), as 
we have said, originated or confirmed some of the impor- 
tant reforms of modern international law. It discussed 
another subject of the deepest importance to the future of 
humanity—the prevention of war, by the mediation and 
collective decision and arbitration of the Great Powers of 
Europe. Article eighth required if there arose between 
the Sublime Porte and one or more of the signatory 
Powers, a disagreement which threatened their peaceful 
relations, that these powers before resorting to force should 
apply to the other contracting powers for their mediation. 

The discussion on this advanced and reasonable propo- 
sition showed that the representatives of the Great Powers 
of Europe were by no means peculiarly favourable to such 
proposals. The results of the last few years have proved 
that even this mild suggestion, and the wishes expressed 
by the plenipotentiaries, that “ All states among whom 
disagreements arose, would, before appealing to arms, have 
recourse to the good offices of a friendly Power,” were far 
beyond the old barbaric habits of Europe, and produced 
little practical effect. Still they indicate the ideal which 
has arisen before the thoughtful minds of the age,—the 
constitution by the Great Powers of Europe of a kind of 
combined Court of Mediation and Arbitration, which 
should prevent war and even enforce its decisions in the 
interest of general peace. 

In only two cases has the mediation of the great Euro- 


MEDIATION. 349 


pean Powers since 1856 brought about peace: one in the 
case of Luxembourg between France and Prussia in 1867 
—a mediation on the part of England which only delayed 
a few years the terrible war that afterwards broke out. 
The other in 1869, the case of Candia between Turkey 
and Greece——a settlement by the Great Powers which was 
by no means in the permanent interest of either peace or 
justice. 

No mediation was able to prevent the terrible conflict 
of 1870. 

If we refer back to European history in this century we 
shall fnd a number of instances, wherein the reasonable 
settlement of differences between nations by arbitration 
has been successfully attempted. 3 

During a war of France with the Moors, certain English 
merchant vessels were captured by the French on the coast 
of Portendik, it was asserted without sufficient notice of 
the blockade. The claims of the English merchants injured 
were referred by the French and English cabinets to the 
King of Prussia, and on November 9th, 1843, a decision 
was given, that a fine should be paid to the English 
merchants injured by the French government :—a fine 
fixed afterwards at 4,770 francs by a mixed commission. 
A war was thus avoided and justice done, to the satis- 
faction of all parties. 

The case of the Armstrong, wherein an American ship 
was destroyed in a neutral harbour (Fayal) by an English 
vessel of war, was a delicate one, involving a claim ona 
neutral power for injuries sustained within its limits, by 
a foreign power. The claim for damages on Portugal by 
the United States was referred by both powers for settle- 
ment to the President of the French Republic. The 
arbiter decided (Nov. 30th, 1852) against the United 
States; the decision was quietly accepted and war averted. 


350 GESTA “CHARIS: 


In 1862, a case of arbitration occurred, where national 
pride might easily have led to violent measures. The 
officers of a British ship, Za Forte, insulted a Brazilian 
sentinel and were thrown into prison, but soon afterwards 
released on the demand of the British vice-consul. The 
English Cabinet demanded reparation from the Brazilian 
authorities, and the dispute was referred to the King of the 
Belgians, as arbiter. He decided in favour of Brazil, and 
the decision was accepted! A difference occurred in 1821 
between Chili and the United States which aroused much 
excitement, and nearly brought on a war between the two 
countries, The Chilian vice-admiral had violated the rule 
of international law which protects private property on 
land, especially that of a neutral: he ordered the seizure 
in the territory of Peru of considerable sums of money, 
the fruit of the sale of merchandise brought in by an 
American merchantship, the brig J/acedontan. The United 
States government addressed a note to the government 
of Chili, demanding the restitution of the moneys seized. 
The ministry of Chili refused to accede to the demand. 
Popular feeling in the United States was in favour of war 
to enforce the claim. The dispute however was at length 
submitted to arbitration, and that wise monarch, Leo- 
pold I., King of the Belgians, became again the arbiter. 
His decision was not rendered till May, 1863, and was 
fully in favour of the United States. Great waste of 
property and loss of life were saved, and both parties re- 
mained in amicable relations. An arbitration between the 
governments of Peru and Japan in 1875, is interesting as 
one of the first instances in which a non-Christian power 
accepted this method of settlement. The case was that of 
the MJaria Luz, a Peruvian vessel arrested in the port 


A“ De:Cards pa5. 


CASES OF ARBITRATION. 351 


re) 


of. Kanazawa by the Japanese authorities, and was decided 
by the arbiter, the Emperor of Russia, in favour of Japan. 

Disputes as to Territory.—Disputes however in regard to 
claims on territory are thought to be of a more vital nature, 
and not so easily settled by umpires. The discussion 
between Great Britain and the United States in regard to 
rights of territory on Puget’s Sound was one of this nature, 
and endangered the relations of the two countries during 
a considerable period. A treaty however was signed on 
June Ist, 1863, whereby the question was referred to two 
arbiters, one being named by each government, who had 
power to name a third, if they disagreed. They were not 
even obliged to choose the third, so fair and just were their 
views, and their decision, rendered September, 1867, was 
received by both parties without protest. 

The similar dispute in regard to the north-western 
boundary with Great Britain had seemed to the American 
government so unreasonable, that it had declined arbi- 
tration six times in regard to it. The case however was 
finally. referred for arbitration to the Emperor of Germany, 
and was decided in favour of the United States, October, 
1872; this decision closing a century-long dispute on 
boundaries. 

A. difference occurred also between Great Britain and 
Portugal, relative to the rights of each government to the 
island of Balama, on the western coast of Africa. The 
matter was referred in 1869 to the President of the United 
States as arbiter: his decision was in favour of Portugal, 
and was received by Engiand without opposition. 

The Alabama.—The great affair of the Alabama and of 
the injuries inflicted by the rebel cruisers is too fresh to 
need much recapitulation. The American people felt itself 
profoundly injured and wounded in the civil war, by the 
tacit permission given by the British government for the 


352 GESTASCH KIS 


manning and fitting out of the rebel cruisers, and the con- 
nivance of numbers of the English people in this violation 
of neutrality. The injuries inflicted by these vessels, and 
especially by the 4/abama, upon American commerce, were 
enormous. Indirectly the American commercial marine 
was almost annihilated by them. So bitter was the re- 
sentment throughout the Union against what seemed a 
flagrant violation of the rules of justice and fair dealing 
on the part of the British government, that popular feeling 
was entirely ready for war, and only the prudence of the 
American authorities, already sufficiently burdened by the 
immense civil struggle, restrained the passions of the people. 

The correspondence with Earl Russell of so cool a 
diplomat as Mr. Adams shows the degree to which feelings 
on each side were aroused. The British minister atten 
endeavouring to justify the action of his government 
towards the rebel cruisers, went so far in his despatch of 
Aug. 2nd, 1865, as to declare that the British government, 
having fulfilled all legal obligations, would never consent 
to refer the contest to arbitration. 

Nor did the close of the struggle and the success of 
the Union diminish the bitterness of feeling against the 
British Government throughout the North. The ministry, 
however, of both Powers appear not to have given up 
all hopes of ultimately settling the difficulty by a recourse 
to measures of justice and right reason. The American 
ambassador, Reverdy Johnson, submitted a proposition for 
arbitration to the British government, which was readily 
accepted. But he had accompanied or preceded it by 
public utterances, so far from expressing the real opinions 
of the American people on the gravity of their wrongs, 
that they created an extreme opposition to the proposal 
in the United States. The reference to arbitration was 
rejected by the American Senate by 54 votes to I. 


THE ALABAMA ARBITRATION. 353 


The President, in communicating this decision to the 
American minister, declared the conditions of the proposal 
unsatisfactory, but affirmed his readiness at the proper 
time to meet this question on a friendly footing. The 
dispute seemed thus as far from settlement as ever. 

It is fortunate that in each country there is a large 
body of persons somewhat guided by Christian principles, 
whose opinions exercise considerable influence on public 
men. Under any popular excitement, the voice of reason 
and religion is not heard; but as soon as this dies away, 
the statesmen are more or less governed by the Christian 
belief of the nation. 

It was not till January, 1871, that an offer of arbitration 
was again made—this time by the British Government. 
The offer was accepted, and a mixed commission was 
formed of five Englishmen and five Americans, to frame 
a tribunal of arbitration. This tribunal (May 8) was com- 
prised of five members, to be chosen respectively by the 
President of the United States, the Queen of England, the 
King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Confederation, 
and the Emperor of Brazil. The Commission were to 
meet at Geneva. It is not necessary to describe the treaty 
in detail. 

The Treaty of Washington was ratified on May 8th, 
1871, by the American Senate by a large majority, and 
approved by the British Parliament, though with many 
objections. Earl Grey said justly of this treaty in a pub- 
lic banquet, that it would exercise an incalculable influence 
on the future of the world in procuring for it the first of 
earthly blessings—peace. 

The Commission met December 15th, 1871, at Geneva, 
and on the 14th September, 1872, rendered its decision, 
condemning England to pay to the United States the sum 
of 415,000,000, as indemnity for the direct injuries done 


“— 


354 . GESTA CHRISTZ. 


to its commerce, by three of the Confederate cruisers. 
The British Commissioner alone refused to sign the 
sentence. 

The English Government, after some objections to the 
interpretation of the rules, accepted the decision, and paid | 
the indemnity. | 

The Geneva Arbitration of 1872 may be fairly held as 
one of the great steps in modern progress towards right 
reason in the settlement of international difficulties. It 
is true that its influence for the time is somewhat dimi- 
nished by the disgraceful delays and disputes in regard to 
the distribution of the indemnity among claimants in the 
United States. Then the settlement, since, of the fishery 
question with Great Britain by an arbitration which 
seemed to the American people unfair and unjust to their 
interests, has for the time weakened the power of this 
method of settlement in the United States, as did the 
results of the Geneva arbitration in England. But these 
are only passing objections. The two leading commer- 
cial powers of the world, in a time of great bitterness 
of popular feeling, and when one side felt itself deeply 
injured, under circumstances which in all past history 
would have been thought to justify war, have deliberately 
controlled passion and submitted their differences to the 
most impartial earthly arbiters. This is one of the first 
prominent instances in history of the influence of Chris- 
tianity on the relations of nations. 

The sketch we have given of different cases of arbitration 
is a list of the “victories of peace.” It is well completed 
by the most momentous of all—the Geneva settlement. 

In some future and better age, when Christianity no 
longer touches only the surface of society but has imbued 
whole races of men and affected the relations of govern- 
ments, it will not be battles which constitute history or 


CHRISTIANITY AND WAR. 355 


the record of fields of blood which makes a nation’s 
glory, but the historian will delight to chronicle these first 
cleams of a higher civilization, when reason was taking 
the place of passion, and law of force, and Christianity 
of hatred and revenge in the relation of one nation to 
another. 

The question is often put, whether arbitration can ever 
become universal, or whether the principles of Christianity 
can ever imbue whole peoples as they have inspired in- 
dividuals. 

Looking at what this Religion has done with a few indi- 
viduals, we may judge of the far future with mankind, and, 
from a few traces now in international laws and customs, 
we may fairly infer what it may accomplish after ages of 
influence upon nations and governments. 

We have beheld it redeeming the lot of the prisoner 
of war from one exposed to massacre and slavery to that 
of the captive humanely treated under modern international 
customs ; we have seen it ministering to the wants of the 
wounded and protecting all that belongs to their care even 
in the army of an-enemy. We have found it prohibiting 
even the killing of an unarmed enemy, forbidding all use- 
less destruction of life and property, all injury of women 
or defenceless persons, all objectless wasting of fields 
and fruits. We have seen it doing away with piracy and 
privateering, with the plunder of philanthropic and scien-t. . 
tific buildings, with all private booty, and even urging the 
protection of private property on the sea. 

What but the influence of the “ Religion of Love,” direct 
or indirect, has done so much to limit the evils of war, and 
to confine them to the belligerents ? | 

It is true war is still the gigantic evil of history—the 
one great travesty of the faith which leading nations 
profess, Yet the spirit of this Faith has won its greatest 


(a 


J Vi j 


356 GESTA CHRISTI. 


‘triumph in finally introducing arbitration between dispu- 


ting nations. 


é . : : 
a hot ‘Phere can hardly be a doubt that in the distant future 
_#' arbitration in some form will be the great method of 


Loe : . : . . 
F a settling international differences. For the coming few 


centuries it will probably only be applicable to exceptional 


» © cases, when national pride and passion are not too much 
aroused. But the increasing power of the religious senti- 


ment and of right reason among men, and it may be the 
crowing influence of the labouring classes, who suffer most 
from war, will force cabinets more and more to this mode 
of settlement. 

If we look at the progress in the slow abolition of “ Pri- 
vate War” in Europe, we shall conclude that in some form 
the civilized world will go through a similar change and 
development, and rise out of the comparatively low moral 
condition of the nineteenth century, as Europe rose out of 
the barbarism of the thirteenth. The probable course of 
development will be first in the Great Powers of the world 
agreeing beforehand when a given treaty is framed, that 
any difference in relation to that particular treaty shall be 
determined by arbitration. The postal treaties of the 
United States with foreign powers contain a clause of this 
character. In 1853 the American senate adopted a reso- 
lution designed to accomplish this humane purpose, to the 
effect that the President should insert in all future treaties 
an article binding the contracting parties to submit all 
differences between them to impartial arbiters. In Decem- . 
ber, 1873, a resolution even more extended, by Senator 
Sumner, was presented in the senate requiring the govern- 
ment to recommend the adoption of arbitration in its rela- 
tions with other nations. The greater part of the European 
treaties of commerce and the international postal treaties 
contain provisions relating to arbitration, in case of dis- 


INTERNATIONAL CODES. 357 


agreement as to the treaties. As we shall show later, the 
arbitration clause has been recommended to the atten- 
tion of ministers by the votes of the Belgian, Dutch, and 
. Swedish chambers. The habit of arbitration will thus be 
introduced in international relations. And in all great 
legal reforms habits have a marvellous power. At first 
it could only be employed in comparatively unimportant 
disputes, but gradually it would come into play in more 
Wital: matters." 

The next great step in the application of right reason to 
international affairs will be the formation of international 
codes or rules of law, which will affect the opinion and the 
practice of the civilized world. We have already seen 
the great influence of Grotius in softening the severities 
-of war, and binding different peoples in more merciful 
relations. It is a matter deeply to be regretted that 
American and British publicists since his time have done 
so little to express Christian and humane ideals in their 
treatises on international law. In a science which rests 
so much on opinion and the principles of equity, each 
author might have advanced it almost as Grotius did, by 
urging all practicable principles of Christianity. The new 
Codes of which we have spoken are both great’ steps in 
advance, and must influence all future relations of nations. 
Another project of an international code by an American 
publicist, D. D. Field, has attracted much attention, from 
its just proposals. It will be a long period before these 
merciful essays towards a form of law which shall govern 
all the civilized world will be accepted. Yet they make a 
foundation for the better future. The opinion of the world 
already has an immense power over all nations. And 
these careful embodiments of its humane feelings and ideas 
must add to this power. 

Courts of Arbitration —But the final step towards the 


358 GESTA CHRISTI, 


“ Universal Peace” so long dreamed of by moralists, will 
be the formation of international courts of arbitration, 
vested with the powers of courts by all the great nations. 
It is true that the times are not ripe for this as yet, and 
may not be for many centuries. In 1873, Mr. Richard 
presented a motion to the British Parliament, only indi- 
cating an approach towards such a reform, to the effect 
that the Queen be humbly requested to instruct her Mini- 
ster of Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with 
foreign powers, having for his object to ameliorate inter- 
national law, and to institute a system of permanent and 
general international arbitration. 

Mr. Gladstone and other orators expressed many doubts 
of the project: but the motion passed (July 9th) after 
much discussion, and on the rith the Queen replied to 
it in conciliatory words which guardedly expressed much 
sympathy in the project, without committing the govern- 
ment to fixed promises. 

In the Italian Parliament, Sig. Mancini presented (24th 
August, 1873) a somewhat similar motion to Mr. Richard’s, 
except that he confined arbitration more particularly to 
disputes on commercial interests or similar subjects, and he 
would introduce into all treaties a clause referring disputes 
on them to arbiters, and pursue the previous policy of 
Italy in rendering uniform and obligatory, the rules of 
“private international law.” ‘This moderate position was 
well received in Italy. 

Other States followed this example. The Lower Cham- 
ber of the Kingdom of Holland (Nov. 27th, 1874) passed 
a motion of a similar character, and urging arbitration 
for all international difficulties. The Belgian House of 
Representatives adopted a similar resolution unanimously 
in favour of arbitration (Feb. 17th, 1875). The Swedish 
Second Chambcr voted by a large majority an address to 


COURTS OF ARBITRATION. 359 


the king, praying for efforts towards a permanent tribunal 
of arbitration between nations. 

It will thus be seen that many public bodies in Europe 
and America have seriously considered this benevolent 
project. It is well known that eminent individuals in 
advance of their age, have long urged it as the greatest 
reform needed among nations. Grotius, as we have shown, — 
contemplated it as a possibility. Leibnitz, William Penn, 
Bentham and many others argued for it; Kant’s project 
for a universal peace through arbitration, and the similar 
views of the Abbé de St. Pierre and of Rousseau, are too \ 
well known to need recapitulation. | 

These humane purposes and projects took a definite form 
in the International Conference of Brussels in 1874, called 
especially at the request of the Russian government. The 
invitation to this Conference contains words worth citing. 


“The more that solidarity,” says Prince Gortschakoff, “ becomes 
developed which tends in these times to bring together and to unite 
nations as one family, the more their military organisation tends to 
give to their wars the character of conflicts between armed nations, 
the more necessary does it become to determine with greater pre- 
cision the laws and usages admissible in a state of war, in order to 
limit the consequences and diminish the calamities attendant upon it, 
so far as may be possible or desirable.” } 


The fifty-six articles which were especially to be con- 
sidered by the Conference embraced most of the points 
so thoroughly treated in the American Instructions and 
the Bluntschli Code. The Conference does not seem to 
have produced much effect, perhaps partly from the want 
of sympathy in its objects by the British government,” 
and partly because the Great Powers have not reached the 


1 Despatch of Prince Gortschakoff, March 4th, 1874. 
2 Despatch of Lord Derby to Lord Loftus, June 2oth, 1875. 


360 GESTA CHRISTI, 


point of moral advance in which these reforms seem in- 
dispensable. 

The formation of an“ Institute for the Codification and 
Improvement of International Law” in Europe and the 
United States, which has already urged the most advanced 
reforms through eminent authorities, is another evidence 
of the power of Christian opinion on this great subject. 

The main objections to the formation of a permanent 
Court of Arbitration with executive powers furnished by 
each nation, are undoubtedly the fear that such an authority 
would threaten the independence of single States, and that 
the execution of its decisions would only create new wars, 
instead of abolishing old. But it would not be difficult to 
form a judicial authority with limited powers, which would 
only have the right to decide and act upon definite ques- 
tions, such as do not affect the independence of a State. 
Each nation would yield up certain of its rights to a power 
of which it was a part, in the interest of general peace. 
Of course, great care would be necessary to prevent the 
Court from becoming corrupt or an agent itself of tyranny 
and injustice. These objects, though formidable, do not 
seem insurmountable. Aimost as great were overcome in 
constituting the Federal Court of the United States. The 
interest of all nations is especially in peace. And many 
temporary annoyances might be endured, in .a certain 
yielding of powers, for the sake of so great a blessing. 
The enormous expense of large standing armies would be 
in part saved, as each power would need only to contribute 
its quota to the executive forces of the International Court. 
Even questions which are supposed to affect the honour or 
independence of a State, would often come before such a 
Court, not for executive decision but for its opinion. And 
an opinion from such an authority would have an incal- 
culable effect on any civilized power. Even the mere 


PEACE (THE, IDEAL, OF CHRIST, 361 


stopping, before the rush to arms, to hear an impartial 
judgment on the quarrel would exert a profound influence 
on the coming belligerents. The voice of reason and re- 
ligion would thus have a chance to be heard. 

The full christianization of international law awaits the 
slow action of christianized public opinion. But much 
may be done, as much as has been done, to humanize the 
relations of nations, to soften the asperities of war, to lessen 
its causes and finally to prevent it. If the Christian Church 
throughout the world were finally aroused to its duties in 
this matter, and were aware how far behind the precepts of 
the Master His nominal followers are, there would long ago 
have been a public opinion in Europe and America which 
would have rendered any war difficult if not impossible. 

Peace among all men and all nations is the ideal pre- 
sented by Christ. And by one class of means or other, 
when at length His teachings have thoroughly permeated 
mankind, this ideal will be attained. 

Outside of the nominally Christian nations, there is no 
international law. The Turks appear to have had little 
idea of it till instructed by European nations. The 
Koran’s teachings tended in the very opposite direction, 
and made war the natural condition towards non-Moham- 
medan races, and treachery justifiable towards an “infidel.” 
The Mohammedan peoples in the north of Africa lived 
in a constant state of hostility with all foreigners. The 
Chinese, with all their advancement in arts and sciences, 
seem never to have thought of any code of humanity and 
justice towards foreign nations. 

The Japanese have indeed recently made efforts to in- 
troduce the international law known to the Christian 
nations, to their own people ; and one proposed code at 
least has been translated. 

1 D. D. Field’s. 


,, 
Z 
1 


362 GESTA CHRISTI. 


No Buddhist, so far as we are aware, has written on 
this topic, nor does a Buddhistic code of laws and customs 
between different peoples exist. 

Nor, as we have shown, does international law owe much 
to Greek culture or to Roman law. The first general tinge 
of humanity in the world’s relations, mercy to the wounded 
and helpless, the softening the rugged face of war, the 
binding different nations in a certain bond (feeble though 
it be) of brotherhood, the disposition to refer injuries to 
arbitration rather than violence—these are the Gesta 
Christi. And when at length Cicero’s dream! shall be 
realized, and there no longer be one law at Athens and 
another at Rome, but one universal law for all nations 
and times, simple, eternal and immutable, “the ruler and 
deity of all men,’—even the law of humanity and Justice, 


\ then will the great law-giver and embodiment of it be the 


“Son of Man,” whose words shall then guide and inspire 
nations, as now individuals. 


1 Fragm, de Rep., lib. iii. 22. 


GHAPTER XXVIII 


SLAVE TRADE AND SLAVERY IN MODERN TIMES. 


SLAVERY, as we have previously shown, had mainly dis- 
appeared in Europe at the close of the Middle foes ey the 
peculiar influence of the Christian religion in teaching the « 
brotherhood of man, and the priceless valu of each human 
being, had everywhere undermined it; the formation of free 
communes in the large towns had given it a deadly blow. 
One effect of the crusades had been to break up classes 
-and loosen the bonds of slavery, and thus under various 
forces, but most of all the moral, slavery had given place 
to serfdom, and serfdom itself had in many countries 
almost passed away. 

In the fifteenth century there was still a trade in 
Mohammedan captives among the Italian states, and here 
and there in such countries as Greece, the enslavement of 
whites, and slaves were occasionally held in various civilized 
states. International custom recognised also the right of 
enslaving prisoners of war. But slavery, under the power 
of strong moral forzes, was virtually disappearing, when ) 
two momentous events occurred which overbore the moral ) 
power working in European society, and let loose a swarm 
of curses on the world such as mankind had scarce ever 
known. One was the first voyaging to a populated and 
barbarous coast where human beings were a familiar article 


of traffic; and the other, the discovery of a new world, 
363 


364 GESTA CHRISTI. 


where mines of glittering wealth were open, provided 
labour could be imported to work them. 

The introduction of negro slaves into Europe in the 
fifteenth century would have been of little account, had 
America never been discovered. They would have been 
merely ornaments of wealthy houses, but as labourers 
would have been speedily vanquished in the struggle with 
the peasantry of Europe. In the West Indies and 
America, however, they entered into competition with a 
weak race already disappearing—the native Indians; and 
they became tools of a poiverful and covetous people, . 
who used them to extract sudden wealth from the 
gsround or the mine. Hence arose the most dreadful 
curse which has perhaps ever afflicted humanity—the 
African slave trade. Almost all other human ills have 
their mitigating features. War is a struggle where heroism 
and courage and effort may come into play, where men 
stake all on a last effort, and expect wounds and death: 
if defeat come. Even women and children may take with | 
resignation that which follows the misfortune of those 
nearest them, and which belongs to the chances of war. 
Captivity, too, may not always be to them worse than their 
former condition. 

The vices of men bring with them a certain degree of 
pleasure, and their penalties are in part self-inflicted. 
Disease and pestilence and earthquake seem to convey 
calamities as if from upper powers, and are borne by 
multitudes of men in common. ‘They appear unavoidable 
and necessary. 

But when one thinks that during four hundred years, 
men and women and children were torn from all whom they 
knew, and sold on the coast of Africa to foreign traders ; 
that they were chained between low decks so that there 
was not even room to rise, and thus in filth and disease 


THE *MIDDDE, PASSAGE.” 365 


and loneliness, the dead often chained to the living, made 
that horrible “middle passage,” each morning the corpses 
being thrown into the sea, the living when temporarily 
released, plunging into the ocean as the least of sufferings, 
or the sick dying from heart-ache and home-sickness ; 
that during all these hundred years the sighs and groans 
and prayers of these wretched creatures rose to heaven ; 
and when they reached the New World, they were consigned 
to only a less degree of misery in the mines, or under 
the lash in the cane and rice-fields; that many millions 
were thus treated, and out of three and a quarter millions 
of negroes, according to an impartial historian,’ thus im- 
ported to various colonies in a century by Great Britain, 
250,000 were thrown into the sea on the passage—one may 
well feel that this is the great crime of history, the one 
before which all others pale in enormity and wickedness. 
It would seem at first sight as if such gigantic injustices 
and cruelties could not possibly happen where Christianity 
had the slightest influence. As Montesquieu, with his 
characteristic irony, says: “ Negroes could not be human 
beings, for if they were, the whole of Christendom would 
have united in a league to put down the African slave 
trade.” 

Worse still, the guilt of this great crime rests on the 
Christian Church as an organized body. It is true that 
many Popes thundered against slavery, and Church Coun- 
cils proclaimed emancipation ; but it is no less true that 
one fatal error of the Church stimulated the traffic in 
negroes and upheld slavery—the belief that the conversion 
of the stolen black would outweigh the sin of man-stealing 
or slavery. It is not true, though often repeated, that one 
of the most devoted followers of the Church and one of the 
most humane of men, Las Casas, first introduced negro 


1 Bancroft. 


366 GESTA CHRIST? 


slavery into the New World. The importation had begun 
before his time under Charles V. He did indeed recom- 
mend the first large importation, in order to relieve his 
beloved Indians; but he lived bitterly to repent his mis- 
take. His Church, however, supported by all its influence 
both the royal grants for purchasing negroes, and all the 
subsequent policy by which slavery. was planted and per- 
petuated in Spanish America. The dark stain of African 
slave trade and of human bondage on a new continent is 
for ever on the garments of the Roman Catholic Church. 
It is a singular travesty’ on ‘the #% Religion» of (ikovem 
that the Spanish government during two centuries con- 
cluded more than ten treaties in “the name of the most 
Holy Trinity” (el nombre del Santissima Trinidad), 
which authorized the sale of more than 500,000 human 
beings, and received from it a tax of over fifty million 
livres. 

Nor does the Protestant Church escape. The first ship 
which sailed from England in 1562, under Sir John 
Hawkins, on the diabolical errand of buying human 
beings in Africa, and selling them in the West Indies, 
bore in a similar travesty the sacred name of Fesus. 
Henceforth for about a century and a half, a Protestant 
power—Great Britain—led in that most shameless traffic, 
—the plundering one continent of human beings to sell 
them as slaves in another. During all these years various 
English monarchs encouraged this trade. Elizabeth her- 
self, the pillar of the Protestant Church, knighted Hawkins 
for his successes, and his crest became a manacled negro. 
Bishops and clergy favoured it; Parliament supported it 
by repeated resolutions and acts; the judges approved it, 
and even so distinguished a jurist as Lord Eldon had the 
presumption to say (in 1807) in parliament, “It (the slave 
trade) has been sanctioned by parliament, where sat juris- 


TALE SELAV Ee hieA DE. 367 


consults the most wise, theologians the most enlightened, 
statesmen the most eminent.” 

It is true that the Protestant Church, as a Church, is 
not so guilty in the encouragement of the traffic as the 
Catholic, but on the other hand, its followers had less 
excuse. They did not profess to believe that “the end 
justified the means.” They knew they were sinning 
against both God and man in their horrible trade. 


The Slave Trade.—The first considerable cargo of slaves 
seems to have been brought in 1444, under Prince Henry 
of Portugal, by a Portuguese captain, from the coast of 
Guinea to the country near Lagos; they numbered 235. 
Other cargoes were brought, but the trade began to fall 
off, and would have undoubtedly ended but for the dis- 
covery of America. It is not known who was the person 
in whose mind the diabolical inspiration was first sug- 
gested, to supplant the weak race of the Indians in 
Hispaniola and on the main land by the vigorous African 
slaves. Charles V. had granted licenses for this trade to 
various persons before, in part at the suggestion of Las 
Casas, he granted a monopoly to Gov. de Bresa in 1517, 
to import 4,000 negroes during eight years into the 
Spanish colonies; this was renewed with a smaller num- 
ber in 1523, but in 1542 the monopoly covered 23,000 
slaves, and in 1542 2,000 were imported annually into 
Hispaniola alone. In 1551 licenses were offered for sale 
in Spain, giving authority to import 17,000 negro slaves. 
Slaves were first carried to St. Domingo in 1510, and to 
Cuba in 1521. Many treaties were made by the Spanish 
government with different companies to authorize this 
odious traffic; and, so far had the idea of a common 
humanity died out, that one Spanish treaty with a Por- 
tuguese Company of Guinea in 1700, stipulated to furnish 


368 GESTA CHRISTI. 


“10,000 tons! of negroes,’ and another between Great 
Britain and Spain stipulated to import 4,800 “ Indian 
pieces” (piezas de Indias), as if they were pieces of mer- 
chandise. This was the notorious provision in the cele- 
brated Treaty of Utrecht, which gave Great Britain as 
one of the prizes of a successful war, a monopoly in the 
slave trade for thirty years from 1713 to 1743; and during 
this period the British government agreed to import 144,000 
negroes or both sexes into Spanish America at 334 piastres 
per head.” 

As we have said, the British slave trade began under 
Queen Elizabeth. In 1662, Charles II. granted an exclu- 
sive right to Queen Catharine and cthers to carry on the 
trade, they stipulating to supply the West India islands 
with 3,000 negroes annually. In 1695, the House of 
Commons reso!ved that “for the better supply of the 
plantations, all the subjects of Great Britain should have 
liberty to trade with Africa for negroes with such limits 
as Parliament should prescribe’’ Certain statutes of 
William declared that “the trade was highly beneficial 
and advantageous to the kingdom, and to the plantations 
and colonies thereunto belonging,” and opened it to all. 
In 1708 the House of Commons declared by the report 
of a Committee, that “the trade was important and ought 
to be free and open to all the Queen’s subjects trading to 
Great Britain.’ In 1729 the House of Commons resolved 


1 Dies mil toneladas de negros, 

2 “First then to procure by this means a mutual and reciprocal 
advantage to the subjects and sovereigns of both crowns, our British 
Majesty does offer and undertake for the persons whom she shail 
name and appoint, that they shall oblige and charge themselves with 
the West Indies of America, belonging to his Catholic majesty, in the 
said thirty years, ,. ... viz. 144,000 negtoes, Prezas de Indias, 1n 
each of the said thirty years, etc.” (Assiento Treaty between Great 
Britain and Spain, 1713.—Co//. of Treaties, 3, 375). 


Putts DEALT RADE. 369 


that the trade in slaves should be open to all, and that it 
ought not to be taxed for the support of the forts on the 
African coast which protected it, and that an appropriation 
ought to be made for the maintenance of such forts. Stil] 
other statutes under George II. (1749) declared the slave 
trade very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary 
for the supplying the plantations and colonies with a suf. 
ficient number of negroes at reasonable rates. In a well- 
known case referred to the judges, Lord Chief Justice 
Holt and eight other judges showed how far the poison 
of the system had worked to neutralize Christianity, by 
declaring in a decision negroes to be merchandise. Pre- 
viously to this, Charles II. had offered special inducements 
to emigrants to settle in the West Indies ; among them, 
lands which should be cultivated by negroes. And not 
only did the British government seek in every way to 
encourage this iniquity, but it checked any beginnings of 
virtuous action in the colonies directed against the evil. 
Various acts of the American colonies protesting against 
the importation of slaves, or bills proposed for this pur- 
pose, were rejected by the British government—two in 
the year 1774 alone. It is but just to say, however, that 
the people of many of the colonies became soon as eager 
for forced labour, or for the gains in this bloody traffic, as 
the people of the mother country itself. 

The treaty of Utrecht (1713) showed the utmost point 
to which this un-Christian spirit reached, and is probably 
the most disgraceful treaty (in so far as it touched the 
slave trade) in human annals. The Englisn policy hence- 
forth turned about this trade as a pivot. 

Between Christmas, 1752, and the same day, 1762, it is 
estimated that 71,1 15 slaves were imported into Jamaica 
alone. Bancroft, the highest authority, estimates, as we 
stated before, that for one century previous to WAS 

BB 


370 GESTA CHRISTI. 


3,280,000 negroes were torn from Africa by Great Britain 
alone, and exported to the English, Spanish, and French 
colonies, of whom 250,000 perished in the Atlantic. 
Helps,! also a careful writer, estimates that from 1519 to 
1807 between five and six millions of negroes were carried 
from Africa by various European powers to the New 
World, and sold as slaves. In one year alone (1768) he 
states the importation to have been 97,000. 

So gigantic a crime under the full light of modern 
Christianity is one of the most discouraging facts in his- 
tory. The very foundation elements of Christ’s teachings 
would forbid the least approach to the trade. The maxim 
“to love one’s neighbour as one’s self,’ must have belonged 
tg another age and religion, when an English Bishop could 
sien the Treaty of Utrecht.? 

The colonies, whether as more influenced by simple 
Christianity, or for other reasons, early (as we have said) 
protested against the slave trade. The great founder of 
Georgia, Oglethorpe, even went so far as to testify that 
they prohibited slavery in that colony, “because it is 
against the Gospel as well as against the fundamental law 
of England.” “We refused as trustees to make a law 
permitting such a horrid crime” (Bancroft, vol. iit. p. 227). 
Within two years, however, the inhabitants petitioned for 
‘slaves. 

There seem strong reasons to believe that slavery was 
encouraged in the British colonies, in order to make them 
‘more dependent on Great Britain. It is certain that before 
they became independent, in 1776, some 300,000 negro 
‘slaves had been introduced into them. So perverted was 


hE at O87. AV Ol. 1V.° Dan 7a 

2 John, Bishop of Bristol. It seems appropriate that the central 
‘slave market in the time of the Norman conquest should continue to 
be the centre of the African slave trade. 


RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION, 371 


public opinion in England at this time, that a “ Society 
for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Lands,” which had 
sent missionaries to the coast of Guinea to convert the ne- 
groes, was found to have owned plantations of slaves in 
the Barbadoes, and had not even thought it worth while 
to give Christian instruction to these victims of tyranny. 
That sect which has in many matters represented more 
purely than any other the principles of Christ, the Quakers, 
began their noble series of protests in Germantown (Pa.) 
in the latter part of the seventeenth century. They made 
a public declaration that, 


“Though the negroes are black, we cannot conceive there is more 
liberty to have them slaves, than it is to have other white ones. 
There is a saying that we should do to all men like as we will be done 
by ourselves, making no difference of what generation, descent, or 
colour they are. . . . Ah! do consider well this thing if you 
would be done at this manner, and if done according to Christianity. 

- . Truly we cannot do so, except you should inform us better 
thereof, namely, that Christians have liberty to practise these things, 
Pray what thing in the world can be done worse towards us than 
if men should rob or steal us away, and sell us as slaves to strange 
countries, separating husbands from their wives and children,” ete. } 


The poet Whittier? has well said, 


“It was not the rigour of her northern winter, nor the unfriendly 
soil of Massachusetts, which discouraged the introduction of slavery 
during the first half-century of her existence as a colony. It was the 
recognition of the brotherhood of man in sin, suffering, and redemp- 
tion; the awful responsibilities and eternal destinies of humanity; her 
hatred of wrong and tyranny, and her stern sense of justice which led 
her to impose upon the African slave trade the terrible penalty of the 
Mosaic code.” 


As early as 1675 the devoted missionary, John Eliot, 
presented a memorial to the government of Massachusetts 


1 Moore’s History of Slavery zn Mass., p. 76. 
* Whittier, quoted in W2/son’s History of the Slave Power, vol.i. p. 7. 


372 GESTA CHRISTI. 


against selling captive Indians into slavery, on the ground 
that “it prolonged the war, hindered the enlargement of 
Christ’s kingdom, and that the selling of souls is a danger- 
ous merchandise.” In 1688, the “ Friends ” of Pennsylvania 
protested publicly against slavery. In 1701 a petition 
against slavery was presented to the representatives of 
Boston, and in 1703 an attempt was made to hinder the 
odious traffic by imposing a duty of 44 on every slave 
introduced into Massachusetts. In 1716 the Quakers 
of New England sent a public letter to the Rhode 
Island Quarterly Meeting, with the following question :— 
“Whether it be agreeable to truth for the Friends to 
purchase slaves and keep them for a term of life” In 
1729 the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting showed the action 
of Christian conscience by protesting publicly against 
buying slaves. At the same time Elihu Coleman wrote 
a pamphlet against slavery as “anti-Christian, and very 
much opposed to both grace and nature.” During the 
latter part of the eighteenth century devoted members of 
the Quaker body laboured against slavery and strove to 
awaken Christians to the sin of slave-holding. Among 
these should be especially mentioned Benezet and Jonn 
Woolman, in Pennsylvania. The great divines, Wesley 
and Whitefield, also preached against the slave trade. 
Among the Congregational divines, Dr. Hopkins of Rhode 
Island particularly distinguished himself by his efforts to 
break up slavery and the slave trade, until, in 1774, Rhode 
Island gave up the wicked traffic, and in 1784 abolished 
slavery. The Society of Friends was however the only 
religious body in America which, as a whole, forbade the 
holding of slaves. In 1773, Dr. Rush, one of the great 
opponents of slavery in Philadelphia, said very justly, 
“Future ages, when they read the accounts of the slave 
trade, if they do not regard them as fabulous, will be at a 


PROTESTS ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. 373 


loss which to condemn most, our folly or our guilt in abet- 
ting this direct violation of nature and religion.”! 

The earlier abolition societies in America in the 
eighteenth century all protested against this abuse on 
religious grounds, and the writings of the anti-slavery 
reformers of that day are full of their objections to the 
system, based on similar motives. “Nearly all,” says 
the historian® of the slave power, “who engaged in the 
formation of anti-slavery societies were members of Chris- 
tian Churches, and were taking an active part in the 
religious and missionary and philanthropic enterprizes of 
the day.” 

One of the celebrated protests against selling slaves 
came from Dr. Gordon in Massachusetts, in 1776. “If 
God,” he says “hath made of one blood all races of men, 
I can see no reason why a black rather than a white man 
should be a slave.” 8 

In 1774 the Quakers of Pennsylvania excluded from 
membership all who bought, sold, or kept negro slaves. 
So strong was the impression that the Christian religion 
freed a slave, that, as we stated previously, the Virginia 
assembly in 1667 was obliged to pass a resolution de- 
claring that the act of baptism did not emancipate: this 
was renewed in 1705.4 | 

Slave [rade in Great Britain.—In Great Britain, the 
earliest opposition to the slave trade and to slavery arose 
among religious men and was impelled by Christian 
motives. Among the prominent opponents of this abuse 
may be mentioned Baxter, Bishop Warburton, Paley, John 
Wesley, Bishop Porteous, Whitefield, and others. It is 


' Quoted in Wilson, vol. i. p. 13. 

2417/s0n, Vol. i, Pp. 230. 

®% Moore’s Astory of Slavery, p. 178. 

* Anderson’s “zstory of Col. Church, vol. ii. p. 552; vol. iii. p. 227. 


374 GESTA CHRISTI. 


unfortunately true, however, that Whitefield subsequently 
permitted the introduction of slavery into Georgia. The 
first petition presented to Parliament against the slave 
trade (in 1776) was based on religious grounds: “that the 
slave trade is contrary to the laws of God and the rights 
of man.” Previously to this, the Quakers, through George 
Fox, had made the following protest against the slave > 
trade in the Barbadoes: “And therefore consider seri- 
ously of this, and do you for them and to them, as you 
would willingly have them or any others do unto you, 
were you in the like slavish condition, and bring them to 
know. the ‘Lord. Christ.” | Again, 1n\1783, the) Oyumicene 
presented to the House of Commons a like petition against 


the slave trade: “Your, petitioners regret, that) a nations 


professing the Christian faith should so far counteract the 
principles of humanity and justice as by the cruel treatment 
of this oppressed race, to fill their minds with prejudice 
against the mild and beneficent doctrines of the Gospel.” 
A certain portion of English society was becoming gradually 
permeated with the opinion that both slavery and the 
slave trade were contrary to the principles of the Christian 
religion. The writings of those earnest men who did more 
than any others to abolish these terrible evils, are full of 
religious expression and feeling in regard to these wrongs 
Clarkson and Sharpe and Wilberforce always urge Chris- 
tian motives against slavery. “If,’ says Clarkson, “we 
oppress the stranger as I have shown, and if by a knowledge 
of his heart we find he isa person of the same passions 
and feelings as ourselves, we are certainly breaking by the 
prosecution of the slave-trade that fundamental rule of 
Christianity which says, we shall not do ‘that unto another 
which we wish should not be done to ourselves.” ! 

The slave trade had brought to Great Britain, during the 


1 Clarkson’s History, p. 246. 


THE SELAWUEEVTRADE, 375 


two cénturies and more of its continuance, hundreds of 
millions of its ill-gotten wealth. It had been protected, 
as we have seen, by the most powerful interests. The 
struggle against it was commenced by a small band of 
Christian men who waged their war on this powerful 
system of injustice almost solely from motives of humanity 
and religion. Sixty years after the Treaty of Utrecht 
was signed, Wilberforce began (1773) to write against the 
slave trade. Clarkson followed in 1780. The struggle 
was long, bitter and severe. .It was not till 1806-7 that 
the final victory. was gained, and the slave trade was 
abolished in the British empire. The Congress of Vienna 
followed in 1815, by engaging the European powers “to 
use especial efforts to abolish the traffic reproved by the 
laws of religion and nature.” 

The United States had included their judgment on the 
slave trade in their constitution, but adjourned the final 
abolition till 1807. The example of Great Britain was 
followed by nearly all the civilized Powers,! and it is noted 
as an evidence of the advance of opinion that the slave 
trade has been condemned by three European congresses, 
a papal bull, twenty-six treatics and more than two hundred 
conventions with African sovereigns. England, as if 
feeling the enormity of her previous policy, has been 
indefatigable in her efforts to make the only redress 
possible, by breaking up the present traffic. She has 
made treaties, maintained cruisers on the coast of Africa, 
established consulates and commissions, and her officials 
have carried on an immense correspondence, organizing 
meetings, missions, voyages and protests without number, 
having for their sole object the breaking up of this de- 
testable trade. There is certainly no public policy recorded 


! Denmark even preceded her and abolished the slave trade in 
1794, so far as it touched Danish ports, and in her colonics after 1004. 


379 GESTA* CHRISTI. 


in history of a higher and more disinterested nature or 
having more the stamp of true Christianity. Despite these 
efforts and those of other civilized powers, the traffic 
continued, and it is believed that as late as 1849, 50,000 
slaves: were imported into Brazil alone. 

Many countries have even made slave trading piracy for 
their own citizens, but it is not as yet held piracy by in- 
ternational law; though no doubt in another generation, 
the public opinion of the world will thus stamp it.) 

Slavery in the British Colontes.—The struggle in England 
against West India slavery was like that against the slave 
trade, throughout caused and urged on by motives of Chris- 
tian philanthropy. It cannot be said that the English 
people or government had any material interest or profit 
in the abolition of slavery in their colonies. The whole 
proceeding seems an act of justice and humanity, and bears 
the stamp of religious influence. The writings and 
speeches of the reformers, the arguments presented to the 
people, the mottoes of the anti-slavery societies, the feelings 
expressed by the people, all prove that this great reform 
proceeded from religious aad humane feelings, was caused 
by Christianity and urged especially from Christian motives. 
Colquhoun,” who writes with anything but a favourable 
spirit to revealed religion, confesses that “a religious 
delirium and morbid sentimentalism dictated this measure ” 
(emancipation). 

Under religious influences many ameliorating features 
had been introduced into the colonial slavery about the 
years 1823 and 1826. But the conscience of England had 


’ In full and just acknowledgment of the interests and principles of 
Christian philanthropy for the entire rooting out of this criminal trade, 
slave trading shall be punished like piracy. (Resolve of German Con- 
federation, June Ioth, 1845.) 

* Roman Civil Law, vol. i. p. 420. 


SS 


ABOLITION. OF COLONIAL SLAVERY. 377 


come to the conclusion, that the only right course with 
this evil was to utterly abolish it. 

After along struggle of the most embittered nature, in 
which the great statesmen of England sided in Parliament 
with the representatives of the religious sentiment of the 
nation, slavery was abolished (1833) throughout the British 
colonies at an immediate cost to the nation of 420,000,000 
($100,000,000) paid to the planters, and an estimated loss 
to the latter of 440,000,000 ($200,000,000) in the value of 
the slaves and the depreciated price of the lands. 

This may certainly be looked upon as one of the greatest 
triumphs of Religion. The example of England was fol- 
lowed in 1846 by Sweden, in 1849 by Denmark, Uruguay, 
Wallachia and Tunis; in 1848 by France, and in 1855 
by Portugal. A strong effort was made in 1880 in the 
Spanish Cortes to abolish the evil in Cuba, which it is 
believed will succeed. Slavery is also mainly done away 
with in Brazil—a law for gradual emancipation having 
been passed in 1871. 

Slavery in the United States—-Yhe opposition to this 
unjust system in both the Northern and Southern States, 
began very early from religious motives. Dr. Sewall, who 
is so prominent in the early history of Massachusetts in 
his opposition to both the traffic in slaves and the hold- 
ing of them, draws his arguments especially from Christian 
doctrines. The Quakers opposed and at length entirely 
renounced slavery from religious grounds. Emancipation 
took place in the Northern States however from a com- 
bination of causes—the influence of climate, the competition 
of free labour, and the little profit of the system, as well 
as from conscientious motives. In the South, where at 
first there had been a deep moral opposition to the system, 
eradually, through its profitable returns, the pride of class 
which it nourished and the political power it conterred, 


378 GESTA CHRISTI, 


there came to bea strong conviction and even passion in 
its favour. As time went on the minds of thoughtful and 
otherwise good men in the Southern States, became com- 
pletely perverted and led astray on this great moral evil. 
Such sophisms as excused the horrors of the slave trade 
to the carly Spanish traders, blinded the intellects of great 
numbers who on all other matters were just and humane. 
The religious influences of American slavery were supposed 
to outweigh all the injustice of the system. ‘Then the evils 
of freedom were believed by many to be greater than 
all those which fell to these ignorant creatures from 


bondage. They were said to be like children, unable to — 


guide or support themselves without their masters. More- 
over, there was the apparent practical difficulty of what to 
do with millions of slaves when they were emancipated ; 
and the fear, bred of ignorance, that when freed, they would 
massacre their former masters, and commit the most 
Savage atrocities. Emancipation was thus believed to 
mean,—poverty to the masters, perhaps servile war, and 
certainly the introduction of a vast clement of ignorance, 
unassimilable by society, into the American body politic ; 
and beyond this, the entire political humiliation of the 
South in the councils of the nation. Every practical in- 
ducement and interested motive seemed to work against 
emancipation at the South. The reformer who should ad- 
vocate it apparently preached utter ruin to himself and his 
associates; he threatened the very existence of civil order; 
he consigned his bondsmen to unknown evils ; he humbled 
and weakened politically that community which had 
become to him more than his nation—his State. The 
property which he would attack had come finally to hold a 
value of over ¢wo thousand millions of dollars. And he did 
all this, when his false religious advisers urged upon him 
that slavery was right, Christian and benevolent to the black, 


| 
r 
; 
. 


SOPHISMS ABOUT SLAVERY. 379 


Tet none of us who have never been in these circum- 
stances and have not felt these temptations, say too confi- 
dently that we could have kept the mind clear and have 
deliberately chosen the path of right and justice though it 
led to ruin and humiliation. 

On the other hand, at the North, many circumstances 
combined to blind the eyes of just and God-fearing men, 
Thousands believed that their fathers had entered into 
a political compact which for ever forbade them from 
abolishing slavery in the Slave States by the power of the 
Federal government. Their hands were tied by solemn 
engagements. Under their view of the constitution, they 
did not hold themselves responsible for this system of in- 
justice, where it was under State powcr. They could only 
bring about emancipation by breaking this compact, or by 
civil war. Jesuitical sophisms had also perverted the judg- 
ment of many. The negroes were under a Christian system 
of instruction; they were better off than as heathen in 
Africa; emancipation would mean the chaos of society 
at the South, and perhaps servile war. Moreover this 
enormous property-interest in the Southern States was 
connected by a thousand ties to the wealth and prosperity 
of the North. The greed of gain, even from this unjust 
source, stupefied the coriscience of a large part of the re- 
ligious community of the Free States. Again, as so often 
in history, the organized Church, in many of its branches, 
became arrayed against true Christianity. Many of the 
nominally religious bodies of the country became pro- 
slavery, and therefore false to the teachings of Christ. 

The opinion of the Presbyterian Synod in the United 
States is given as early as 1787, in favour of universal 
liberty and of constant preparation by the masters for 
emancipation, by providing education for the slaves, and 
by granting them a small property of their own, and finally 


=! 


380 GESTAS GHRISTL 


they “recommended it to all their people to use the most 
prudent measures, consistent with the interests and the 
state of civil society in the countries where they live, 
to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in 
America.” } 

Again this advice is repeated in 1815; and in 1818, the 
General Assembly venture to say that slavery is a gross 
violation of the most Precious and sacred rights of human 
nature; “utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which 
requires us to love our neighbour as ourselves, and totally 
irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of Christ.?2 
They then adopted a declaration, which was repeatedly 
reaffirmed by subsequent assemblies, that “its manifestly 
the duty of all Christians who enjoy the light of the 
present day, to use their honest, earnest and unwearied 
endeavours, as speedily as possible, to efface this blot on 
our holy religion, and obtain the complete abolition of 
slavery throughout Christendom.” 3 

The Congregationalists, Unitarians and other sects were 
in their early history even more opposed to slavery, both 
in their formal resolutions and in their practical action. 
The Methodist Episcopal Church, in an early conference 
(1780) plainly condemned the system of human bondage ; 
but, as with many of the sects in the United States, the 
corrupting influences of the system gradually penetrated 
the Church and weakened its moral force. In 1800, the 
Annual Conference was directed to draw up an address 
for the gradual emancipation of the slaves, to such legis- 
latures as had passed no laws on this subject. By a sub- 
sequent action, however, this and other similar paragraphs 
were struck out, and the following words were added (1804) : 

’ Digest of Records of the General A ssembly of the Presb. Church, 


P- 335. 
SeOL IDAs ® Ltd pS An' 


WEAKNESS).Of PAL] CHURCH. 381 


“Tet all our preachers, from time to time as occasion serves, 
admonish and exhort all slaves to render due respect and 
obedience to the commands and interests of their respec- 
tive masters.” ! 

It is from 1830 to 1850 that the so-called “Church of 
Christ” in the United States was, in many of its branches, 
especially false to His principles as regards justice and 
benevolence to our fellow-men. This was true not only 
of the public action of many religious bodies, but of the 
private views and arguments of individual leaders of the 
Church in all sects, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. 
Many sophistical arguments were put forth by Northern 
religious men to prove the right of slavery; and the 
Churches were exceedingly timid in hearing or pleading 
the cause of the oppressed. A distinguished Presbyterian 
divine, Dr. Albert Barnes, said in a well known address, 
“There is no power out of the Church that could sustain 
slavery an hour if it were not sustained in it.”* 

Even the Quakers, in this hour of trial, were often found 
inconsistent with the doctrines their predecessors had so 
consistently taught, and gave little encouragement to move- 
ments for emancipation.? It is stated that only certain 
small sects, such as the Free Will Baptists and Old School 
Covenanters, were always and consistently opposed to 
slavery.4 Individual Churches, however, in all sects were 
true to the spirit of their Master—especially among Con- 
eregationalists and Unitarians. 

In the meantime, the profound principles of Christianity 
were working on such minds as Garrison’s, Lovejoy’s, 
Phillips’, Johnson’s and others, and producing in them 
the intense conviction, that the slave was a brother, that 


1 Bowen’s Methodist Episcopal Church and Slavery, p. 24. 
2 Johnson’s Garrison, p. 248. 
3 [bid. bed (rte 


382 GESTA CHRISTI. 


for him Christ had lived and died, and we were bound to 
do to him as we would have others do to us in like condi- 
tion, and that no compact or constitution could hold which 
permitted such an atrocious injustice as American slavery. 
It is true that subsequently the false position of a large 
part of the American Church on this question forced many 
of the early abolitionists to an apparent opposition to 
religion ; it was only however an asserting of the real 
character of Christianity against those who had falsified it. 

Garrison at an early period said, “ Emancipation must 
be,the work of Christianity and the Church. They must 
achieve the elevation of the blacks and place them on the 
equality of the Gospels.”! And again in an impassioned 
passage, the great emancipator exclaims, “I call upon the . 
spirits of the just made perfect in heaven, upon all who 
have experienced the love of God in their souls here below, 
upon the Christian converts in India and the isles of the 
sea, to sustain one in the assertion, that there is power 
enough in the religion of Jesus Christ to melt down the 
most stubborn prejudices, to overthrow the highest wall 
of partition, to break the strongest caste, to improve and 
elevate the most degraded and to equalize all its recipients.’””? 

No one who knew anything of the anti-slavery reformers 
in the United States, will doubt that their career was 
begun and carried on under the purest influence of Christ’s 
truths. It was these and similar men and women who 
founded, in 1833, the American Anti-Slavery Society. 

But beyond them was a great host of religious men and 
women in all sects, who felt the deepest opposition to 
slavery from humane and religious grounds. They con- 
scientiously believed their hands tied by a political com- 
pact; they did not hold themselves responsible for the 
existence of slavery in the Southern States; but they were 

1 Fohuson, p. 68. * Lbid., p. 106. Words spoken in 1832. 


ANTI-SLAVERY PARTY. 383 


unalterably opposed to its extension or to any increase of 
its power. From this great body, the prayer for emancipa- 
tion went up by night and day ; they scattered innumerable 
documents, and furnished speakers and arguments against 
the system ; they did their utmost to hem the slave power 
within fixed boundaries ; they poured free labour over the 
new territories, and from them were organized the great 
party which started, with all the enthusiasm of a moral 
reform, its triumphant opposition to the extension of the 
slave power and finally to its very existence! 

The natural effect and tendency of slavery at the South 
tended more and more to awaken the Northern conscience. 
The increasing cruelty of the masters; the laws against 
instruction of the negroes ; the breeding of slaves for the 
market, and the separation of families; the violence and 
arrogance of the slaveholders, and beyond all other things, 
the pursuing of fugitive bondmen on free territory, aroused 
each day a deeper hostility to this organized injustice 
among even the most cautious of the citizens of the Free 
States. When slaves were sold under the shadow of the 


1 In an interesting sketch of the struggle which prevented Illinois 
in 1823 from becoming a Slave State, the Lzfe of Gov. Coles, the 
biographer (Mr. Washburne), says, “the press teemed with publica- 
tions on the subject. The stump-orators were invoked, and the pulpit 
thundered anathemas against the introduction of slavery. The relig- 
ious community coupled freedom and Christianity together, which was 
one of the most powerful levers used in the contest.” At one mecting 
of the Friends of Freedom in St. Clair county, more than thirty 
preachers of the Gospel attended and opposed the introduction of 
slavery into the State.* 

“It may be said to the eternal honour of the clergy of.Illinois at 
that day, that they were almost without exception opposed to the Con- 
vention (which favoured the making it a Slave State), and that they 
exerted great influence in securing the rejection of the Convention pro- 
position at the polls” (p. 171). 


* Sketch of Gov. Coles, p. 136. 


384 GESTA® Clie 1 


Capitol of the United States, and when government troops 
conducted a chained runaway through Boston to his 
master, the most conservative felt that no American citizen 
could escape a certain responsibility for the existence of 
slavery ; and a deep and burning indignation was kindled 
in many minds that such a shame and tyranny could 
exist under the republic. 

In all great reforms and changes, there are many forces 
that bring about the final result. The wrath of man as 
well as the love of God, mingle often in the ultimate 
abolition of human ills. It was the anti-slavery feeling, 
begotten of Christianity, which prepared the minds of the 
great intelligent masses of the Free States for their final 
strugele with the slave power. And no reasonable ob- 
jector should belittle this motive, because these very men 
were held back from forcible opposition to slavery by a 
loyal conviction of their obligations under the consti- 
tution. They saw that to strike directly at the slave 
power meant revolution and civil war. Considering the 
probable fearful nature of such a conflict and the un- 
certainty of its issue, they do not deserve reproach that 
they waited for the other side to give the first blow. 

And then, beginning the difficult struggle with a large 
element of the population in sympathy with the slave- 
masters, it may be excused that these doubting ones 
were attracted by other cries, than those of anti-slavery. 
The government, too, kept its old traditions, and still feared 
to avow, what was the great impelling power of the North- 
ern uprising—its hostility to slavery. American states- 
men in their proclamations and public despatches, even 
made light of the objects of the struggle, and seldom pro- 
fessed the moral enthusiasm which fired the thousands of 
individuals who pressed forward to the ranks. But those 
who knew the people at this time, knew that in every 


THE UP-RISING AGAINST SLAVERY. 385 


company and regiment enlisting for the war, there were 
men animated with an unquenchable enthusiasm for liberty 
and hatred of slavery. They loved the Union indeed, but 
they loved it as the ideal of liberty for all men of all races 
A moral fervour burned through all classes of men at 
the North. The first regiments came from the most anti- 
slavery districts of the most religious communities. Many 
of the leaders were avowed abolitionists. The popular 
songs breathed the spirit of emancipation. A thousand 
pulpits pleaded the cause of the negro and denounced 
slavery. The feeling had stamped itself deep into the 
heart of. the® Northern’ people, that slavery; as a great 
wrong and injustice, would injure the white and the whole 
country equally with the negro, and was against the laws 
of Providence. 

Innumerable other feelings and motives mingled in the 
spirit which opened and sustained the war: love of the 
Union, pugnacity, the hostility of a free-labour class to 
a slaveholding class, political sympathy and a careful 
weighing of the chances of the future if a slaveholding 
republic were allowed unlimited sway side by side with 
a free republic. But deeper than all these, among the 
religious bodies, and in every class, was an intense moral 
opposition to slavery, and a determination now that hands 
were unbound as to the compacts of the constitution, to 
get rid of it once and for ever. 

The mere pecuniary and commercial interest of the 
Free States was undoubtedly to leave the status quo, to 
enjoy the indirect profits of slave-labour, and not suddenly 
to destroy two thousand millions worth of apparent 
property in a portion of the republic. The moral forces, 
as well as enlightened policy, prevailed. 

It is true that emancipation was at length declared as 
a ‘“‘war-measure. But the way was prepared for it by 

CC 


7 
| 
j 
| 


| 


386 GESTA CHRIS Th 


the moral opposition to slavery as a wrong and in- 
justice. 

The whole population of the Free States had been 
educated by events as to the real character of the system, 
and conscience and religious sentiment had been en- 
lightened by what seemed _the revelation of Providence 
itself, ~In such vast social reforms as the abolition of 
American slavery, many influences must combine with the 
purely moral and religious. Christianity acts merely as 
stimulating the conscience, increasing human sympathy, 


'and awakening the mind to the horror and injustice of 
_ such an oppression of a fellow-man. It does not show the 
| way to revolution, though indirectly it does often “ bring 


\a sword into the world.” But it works upon the most tre- 
mendous motive-power in human affairs—the conscience 


_and sympathy, and under it, convulsions must come ; until 
‘finally men approach in institutions and laws its divine 
| principles. 


Without the passion ard rashness of the South, it is 
difficult to see how emancipation would have come for 
centuries. There might have been two republics indeed, 
but one would have been slaveholding. Still ultimately in 
the far future, after untold horrors, and convulsions and 
wars, freedom would have dawned on the American con- 
tinent also, for “where the Spirit of Christ is, there iS 


liberty.” 


5 Be ATI P.O ONS 
MODERN SERFDOM. 


THE history of serfdom and emdhcipation in the Middle 
Ages virtually includes the similar history in modern 
times. 

This relic of a barbarous period reached down to a more 
civilized era. The oppression and exactions of serfdom 
in every country of Europe, except Norway and Sweden, 
have weighed down and degraded the labouring class, 
crippled their producing power, and in many states, pre- 
pared the way for the outbreaks which accompanied or 
followed the French Revolution. The ignorance and de- 
eradation of a large part of the European peasantry in 
this century are due most of all to serfdom. Even as 
late as 1750 (it is stated by careful writers)* more than 
one-half of the German people were in the state of serf- 
dom. The profound moral and religious forces which 
cradually change such a system of injustice as this, are 
not easily recognised. The most powerful influences 
working to the overthrow of serfdom were the silent. 

Throughout the eighteenth century, the press in Europe 
became imbued with humane and religious ideas, and 
thundered incessantly against this ancient injustice. 

The philosophers, who often, while deriding religion, 


1 Sugenheim. Zimmerman. 
oe : 
oo) 


388 GESTA CHRISTI. 


showed the purest Christian spirit, constantly . protested 
against this wrong. Men’s minds became everywhere 
stamped with the ideas of equality of rights for all, and 
of humanity toward the weak. The incredible burdens 
and exactions of serfdom in France, Germany, Italy, Spain 
and other countries, were felt to be violations of Christian 
and humane obligations. Here and there prominent acts 
of emancipation by individual masters betray the deep 
impulses at work. 

Thus a certain Count Rantzan in Holstein, in 1766, 
published a pamphlety giving his own experience in 
freeing his serfs, which was afterwards circulated as a 
document of emancipation in Russia, and is believed to 
have had much effect there. This owner of serfs gives a 
powerful picture of the hopelessness, degradation and ir- 
religion of his bondmen ; how they had no heart in their 
labours, no courage and no hope; and how they even 
became indifferent to the strongest impulses of human 
nature, and did not care for marriage or to leave descend- 
ants who should. inherit such misery.- “This condition 
(of serfdom),” says the Count, “naturally extinguished all 
moral good in them ; one observed in them a beastly cold- 
bloodedness towards God and religion.' 

In various countries, the sovereigns were sufficiently in 
advance of their times to press emancipation on an unwil- 
ling nobility and gentry ; in others, the storms of revolu- 
tion swept away the last relics of feudal oppression. But 
in almost all, the ideas and principles derived from religion 
had prepared men’s minds for removing the heavy burdens 
on the poor. 

One of the earliest royal ordinances against serfdom 
in modern times was from Frederick I. of Prussia (1702), 
doing away with it on the royal domains ; this, however, 

t Sugenheim, Pp. 517 


ABOLITION OF SERFDOM. 389 


was withdrawn in 1711. Frederick II. attempted to renew 
the injunction in 1719, especially on the royal territory 
in Prussian Pomerania. These efforts were followed by 
those of Frederick the Great (1763), but they all failed, 
though the oppression was much softened in the Polish 
provinces. 

In France, an edict of Louis XVI. proclaims (1779) that, 
“considering that a great number of our subjects are still 
setvilely attached to the soil, and regarded as making part 
of it,' they shall be free on the royal domain.” Vet, 
nothing but the explosion of the revolution broke up the 
exactions and burdens of ages, and freed France from this 
injustice. Previous to this, in North Italy the princes had 
abolished these ancient oppressions of the people, Vic- 
tor Amadeus of Savoy having abolished forced labour in 
1729, and removed all similar burdens in Sardinia in 1761. 
In Germany, it was in this century before the various 
oppressions of serfdom were done away with. As usual, 
the revolutions bore in their train emancipation from 
feudalism. The outbreak of 1830 was followed by free- 
dom to the poor peasant in Hanover (1831), in Saxony and 
Bavaria (1832), and Wiirtemburg (1836). The Revolution 
of 1848 was followed by entire liberty in Prussia (1850) from 
feudal burdens, though serfdom had been abolished forty 
years before; and by the utter doing away with forced 
labour and service among the peasants by the Magyar 
nobility (1849) in Hungary. In Austria, the Imperial 
house had done much for the serfs through different reigns, 
but serfdom was not ended in Gallicia till 1782; and all 
traces of feudalism were not swept away till this cen- 
tury. 

This abuse in some of its forms survived in Denmark 
till 1835, and in Switzerland till 1846. 


1 Sugenheti. 


390 , GESTA CHRISTI. 


In Russia, as is well known, serfdom survived till 1861. 
It is probable that in this latter country, and in Hungary, 
the religious impulse had less share in emancipation than it 
has had in the rest of Europe. Still both countries felt 
the current of the age, which has been strongly directed 
by the ideals presented in the Gospels. The conception 
of man as a “a brother in Christ,” and one for whom He 
has died, always tends to shake down tyranny and under- 
mine injustice. As Religion spreads abroad the ideas of 
human brotherhood, equality before God, responsibility 
to Him and liberty, the ancient systems ‘of injustice are 
brought to the ground, and Freedom and Justice begin 
to rule and prevail. 


CHAPTER XXX, 


THE DUEL. 


THE progress which has been made in Christianized 
opinion in regard to this custom, may be best measured 
by the views of one of the most acute philosophical writers 
on law in modern times; an author, too, who considered 
all these subjects (so far as his training permitted), unin- 
fluenced by Christian traditions. Bentham, in his “ Princi- 
ples of Penal Law” ; says of the duel: “It entirely effaces 
the stain which an insult imprints upon honour.” He then 
praises courage, justly, as one of the highest qualities of 
the citizen, and regards it as especially tested by this mode 
of trial, 

“In the state of neglect,” he adds, “in which the laws till the 
present time have left the honour of the citizens, he who endures an 
insult without having recourse to the satisfaction which public opinion 
prescribed to him, by thus acting exhibits himself as reduced to a 
state of humiliating dependence, and exposed to receive an indefinite 
series of affronts; he exhibits himself as devoid of the sentiment of 
courage which produces general security, and, indeed, as void of 


sensibility to reputation,—sensibility, protection of all the virtues and 
safeguard against all the vices.” 


Or again, 


‘Duelling is a preservative of politeness and peace—the fear of 


1 Bentham’s Works, vol. i. p. 380. There is reason to think from 
a letter of Bentham to the Duke of Wellington, that he modified 
these views in later life. 

392 


392 GESTA CHRISTI. 


being obliged to give or receive a challenge, destroys a quarrel in the 
germ.” ‘ 

“Tf the legislator had always applied a proper system of satisfaction 
for offences, there would have been no duelling, which has been and 
is still but a supplement to the insufficiency of the laws.” 


The Christian system, it need not be said in reply, 
differs zz toto from the modern theory of “honour,” as it» 
does from the spirit which supports war. It requires the 
believer indeed to scrupulously regard the opinion of the 
just and honourable, and to avoid even the appearance 
of evil ; but its standard is not reputation, even that of the 
highest and most civilized persons, but character, and 
character continually tested by Christ. Its “sensibility ” 
is constantly called out, not towards a public opinion which 
ever changes, but towards the supposed approval of the 
purest moral character which history has known. Ben- 
tham’s argument at this late day hardly seems worth 
replying to. A devout Christian of his time would have 
said: “We hope through the gradual influences of the 
Christian religion and right reason, to change the public 
opinion of all civilized states, so that the politeness and 
peace of which you speak will be the national outflow 
of improved morals and manners, and not the effect of 
fear or prudence; so that affronts will not be so often 
offered, or will not be so much felt, or will be punished by 
law and public reprobation. We hold that courage may be 
tested'in far more sensible and useful ways than in personal 
combat; and that the duel settles nothing, and cannot 
affect in one way or the other the reputation assailed. We 
hold that a nobler courage may be shown by refusing a 
challenge than accepting it ; and that the Christian has a 
higher standard to measure himself by than a changing 
public opinion, inherited from barbaric times, which often 
approves selfish and base actions. We trust to change 


LTHheCHURGHUANID THE DUEL. 393 


both opinion and law, so that duelling will become con- 
sidered as a relic of barbarism, as it is known to be con- 
trary to the spirit of the Christian religion.” 

The struggle, however, between the. spirit of this Faith 
and this custom has been an exceedingly slow and doubt- 
ful one for the past three centuries. In this matter, the 
Church has been indeed more consistent with the teachings 
of the Master than in any other. The Church as well as 
Christianity has nearly always opposed the duel of revenge, 
or that fought on account of wounded honour. | 

The Council of Toledo (1477) made a solemn declara- 
tion that Christian burial should be refused to duellists, 
Pope Julius ITI. (1509) issued a bull, prohibiting the duel 
on pain of excommunication, and Leo X. (1519) threat- 
ened the same punishment to all witnesses, seconds, or 
abettors of the offence. Pius V. extended the prohibition 
to all Christendom. The celebrated Council of Trent 
gave forth no uncertain sound on this custom. All 
duellists were threatened with excommunication and loss 
of Christian burial, and the duel was called “an invention 
of the devil to ruin the soul, by the bloody death of the 
body.” Gregory XIIL (1582) also issued a bull, threatening 
terrible spiritual penalties on all duellists, and Clement 
V. extended the punishment to all seconds and abettors ; 
and as late as.1752, Benedict XIV. proclaims a refusal 
of Christian burial even to those who died away from 
the field of contest, but through the effects of the duel. 

The Protestant and Catholic Church has each been 
equally opposed to it during all their history. The books 
of religious instruction, and the volumes of sermons, in 
all Christian countries, are full of arguments and appeals 
against the practice. And yet it was late in this century 
before Christian influences produced much effect. 

The “duel of honour” is to be distinguished from the 


394 GESTA CHRISTI. 


“judicial duel” of the Middle Ages. It is an off-shoot 
of chivalry, and especially made its appearance in France 
in ‘the sixteenth «century in, the treisnsot) Prancis aie 
represented the exaggerated sensitiveness of a class to 
any slight affecting its reputation, which was an especial 
feature of chivalry and feudalism. Reversing the rule of 
the Roman law,! the modern gentleman felt tne light blow 
of a stick or the hand on the face as a greater insult than 
a stroke by a deadly weapon, because the peasants and 
villains alone fought with sticks and fists, and with un- 
covered faces. The lie was: the highest insult, because 
this was the common reproach or accusation made against 
the slave, the villain, or the peasant. 

The duel became the badge or sign of a class: and the 
chivalric habit of a barbaric age of fighting in the cause 
of the weak or for any wound of honour or the most 
trifling reason, became transferred to a more enlightened 
time, and was the mode of showing membership in an 
undefined body, of restraining rudeness and satisfying 
enmity. It is the “survival” of barbarism in a civilized 
age. | 

So rife did the practice become in France, that during 
the eighteen years of the reign of Henry IV., four thousand 
French gentlemen are said to have perished in the duel, 
and this good-natured king is reported to have granted 
14,000 pardons to those who had offended against the 
law in this matter. From his reign to 1757, no less than 
twelve royal ordinances and eight acts were published 
against duelling, and yet as late as the minority of Louis 
XIV. three hundred of the first nobles of France perished 
by this practice. 

Duels were almost equally common in England and 
Ireland. In the reign of George III. there were, according 


 Ictus fustium infamiam non importat. (De his qui infamia, etc.) 


DUELS IN ENGLAND. 395 


to Gilchrist, one hundred and seventy-two duels, in which 
one-fifth of the combatants were killed, and one-half re- 
ceived wounds ; only eighteen of these were tried (though 
the statute books are full of laws against the practice), of 
whom six were acquitted, seven were found guilty of man- 
slaughter, three of murder, two were executed, and eight 
sentenced to imprisonment. Every state in Europe has 
legislated against duelling, and in many armies, an officer 
is cashiered who takes part ina duel. “Courts of Honour” 
have been formed in various countries to take jurisdiction 
of offences against honour. Yet duelling still continues 
in France, and to a limited degree in Germany. Even 
so celebrated a general and old a soldier as the Duke of 
Wellington, after all his victories, felt it necessary to fight 
a duel as late as 1829; and a duel between Englishmen in 
England was fought as late as 1845, while one occurred 
in England between Frenchmen in 1852.1 

As late as 1841, an address was presented to the House 
of Lords, in relation to a particular duel, and protesting 
against this barbaric custom, and obviously under the 
impression that public feeling among the higher classes 
was very much in its favour. | 


“ If society,” say the petitioners, “zs Zo be preserved, it must be 
christianized. Your lordships have acknowledged this great truth 
by your exertions to preserve the Christian principle in education. 
. . . But it would be mockery to hold forth the Decalogue with 
one hand, and with the other, a Charter of legitimacy to that spurious 
offspring of human vice and folly, which, involving as it does a direct 
transgression not of one only but almost every law in the Decalogue, 
virtually annuls it. . . . Wecall upon your lordships therefore in 
the name of God and man . . . to accompany your verdict with 


——— 


1 It is reported that inthe same year a trial occurred in England for 
slander, between two English Naval Officers, which would have been 
settled earlier by duel. 


306)". GEST AD CHRISTY, 


the fearless and unqualified expression of your united abhorrence of 
the unhallowed system of duelling.” ! 


A duel occurred in England in 1843, which gave rise 
to the “ Anti-duelling Association,” and was followed by 
an order of the Queen through the War-office in 1844. 
This order? has perhaps broken up duelling in the British 
army, though previous experience shows that such orders 
are successful only when they are the voice of public 
opinion. By this regulation, an officer engaging in a duel 
is cashiered and his second punished. In the third article, 
approbation is expressed of - 


“The conduct of those who having had the misfortune to give 
offence to or injure or insult others, shall frankly explain, apologize, or 
offer redress for the same, or who, having received offence, shall 
cordially accept frank explanation or apology for the same; . . 
and lastly, all officers and soldiers are acquitted of disgrace or dis- 
advantage, who, being willing to make or accept such redress, refuse 
to accept challenges,” etc. 


This certainly is at length the voice of Christianity speak- 
ing through governmental regulation and military law. 

In the United States, the duel has been so common, 
that a modern English historian of duelling, Dr. Millingen,® 
writing in 1841, says, with suitable modesty, he is con- 
fident from the progress already made, that within half 
a century, duels will become as rare in the United States 
as in Great Britain, if not rarer. In its early history, the 
Republic lost the greatest statesman it has ever possessed 
—Alexander Hamilton—in a duel with a worthless ad- 
venturer who was determined* to murder him, and when 


1 The Times, Feb. 11th, 1841. 

* Quoted in Steinmetz’s Romance of Duelling, vol. ii. p. 366. 

3 History of Duelling, vol. i. p. 179. 

* Bentham, on hearing from Burr’s lips the account of this duel, 
said, “it was nothing less than murder.” See Bentham’s Works, 
vol. xi. 


SOUTHERN PROTESTS AGAINST DUELLING. 397 


Hamilton, disapproving the practice, fired into the air. 
The feeling throughout the country at this useless sacrifice, 
aided much in breaking up the practice in the Free States. 
The savage influence of the slave system kept it up for 
many years, especially in Washington, where the members 
from Free and Slave States met in bitter discussion. It 
was, however, a Southern statesman—Gen. Pinckney, of 
South Carolina—who, after Hamilton’s death, addressed 
in 1804 a celebrated memorial against duelling to the 
Senate and House of Assembly of South Carolina. 


“Your memorialists,” he says, “are deeply impressed with grief at 
the prevalence of the custom of duelling, which trampling on all laws, 
human and divine, sweeps off many useful citizens, leaving the families 
a prey to sorrow, and ‘often to poverty and vice. That this custom 
originated in dark and barbarous ages, when a regular and impartial 
administration of justice was unknown and unpractised, etc. That 
restraining personal resentments by giving the attribute of vengeance 
to the laws, was the greatest victory obtained by civilization over 
barbarism, but the custom of duelling is too well calculated to defeat 
the beneficent effects of that triumph, and to weaken the effect of all 
laws, etc. That the pretence of those who would excuse this custom 
on the ground that it polishes society and prevents assassination, is 
wholly unfounded; . . . a custom, which though in direct hos- 
tility of the principles of Christianity, prevails only in Christian 
Europe and America.” 


Again still later (in 1838) it was a Southerner, Henry 
Clay, who in a debate on a bill to prohibit duelling in the 
District of Columbia, said, as the last word in the debate, 
“When public opinion is renovated and chastened by 
religion, reason and humanity, the practice of duelling will 
be at once discountenanced.” - 

This bill, it should be remarked, passed with only a 
single vote in the negative. So in every State, strict laws 
were passed against duelling, and provisions against it 
included in the constitution of many even of the Slave 
States. The rules and regulations governing the United 


398 GESTA CHRIS DL 


States army strictly forbade it. But all this was of no 
avail. Public opinion even in the North for a long time 
upheld it; and in the South, the influence of slavery and 
the society based upon it, preserved the custom till within 
a very few years. The gradual permeation of the people 
by Christian ideas and by right reason, has finally utterly 
done away with duelling in the Free States ; while the 
same causes with the destruction of a slave oligarchy at. 
the South, have gradually uprooted it there. It is not 
found in practice that the abolition of duelling, as was 
so freely predicted, has increased assassination or cases 
of bodily attacks; nor does it make language in political 
debates more personal or violent. Politeness of manner 
through the Union is even more common than in the times 
when challenges were so customary. Political debates are 
no more abusive, and on the whole, less so, than under 
the duelling régime. Instances of personal violence and 
murderous conflict are more rare in all the States. The 
press, often vituperative enough, is not as bad as it was 
when a scandalous article brought after it a challenge. 
The whole country has been much softened by religion 
and the progress of civilization. Courage has been suff-_ 
cieritly tested in the awful ordeal of ‘civil war. Public 
opinion has been elevated and Christianized. Laws ex- 
press the higher feeling on this subject, and are executed. 
The duel, as will be in some distant day with war, is 
simply regarded as a relic of a barbarous age, and will 
soon utterly pass out of use or observance. 


COAP TEREX XXL 
PRISON REFORM AND CHARITIES. 


IT is certainly one of the marked steps in humane progress 
among civilized nations, that the convict and prisoner for 
crime or transgression is no longer merely left to his 
punishment, or treated with brutality and unnecessary 
cruelty. There is scarcely a trace in the ancient world 
of any important attempt to reform the offender against 
human law or to render his confinement less miserable. 
It was seldom remembered that many offenders are only 
technical violators of human legislation, and that many 
others are led into crime by the entire neglect of their 
education by the community. 

Prison reform began under Christian influences, as we 
have previously shown, during the reign of the first 
(nominally) Christian Emperor of Rome.  Constantine’s 
legislation (320 A.D.) thus provides for improvement in 
the treatment of convicts. Those accused of crimes are 
to be examined with promptness and not to be detained 
in confinement, while those arrested are to be confined in 
a humane manner. ‘The cells are to be furnished with 
means for air and light. Persons under accusation are 
not to be put in jails or scourged, but are to be placed 
under “ military arrest” and in a prison open to the light 

In 340 a law forbade the mingling of sexes in prison.? 


1 Cod. Theod, lib. ix. tit. 4. a lbid., tite I. 
399 


400 GESTA CHRISTI 


The Emperor Honorius charged the judges to visit the 
prisons every Sunday, to see that the prisoners received 
sufficient nourishment. and to take care that proper 
humanity be shown the convicts by the jailers.! 

In 549 the Council of Clermont orders the prisons to 
be visited every Sunday by the archdeacon or some other 
church official, to provide for the wants of the prisoners. 


The great reform of European, prisons commenced by 
Howard, is most clearly a fruit of the teachings of the 
“Friend of man.” Every line of the private journals of 
this devoted philanthropist, his dying words and prayers, 
show the religious inspiration which prompted his efforts. 
“Do Thou, O Lord!” says this friend of the unfortunate, 
a little before his death, “visit the prisoners and captives 
and manifest Thy strength in my weakness, Help, Al- 

mighty God! for in-Thee do I put my trust, for Thou 
art my rock.” ? 

A biographer says of him: “The Hrataay sun is not 
more evidently the cause of light and warmth and fruitful- 
ness, than that Christian love which animated, induced 
and constrained Howard to consecrate himself entirely 
to God’s service, and to sacrifice life rather than that 
fellow-men should suffer whom he might assist and re- 
lever” 

The great reforms of this century in the treatment of 
convicts and prisoners; the individual moral influences, 
the stimulus introduced of hope and a kind of moral pro- 
bation within prison walls, the grading and separation of 
prisoners, the introduction of schools, libraries and the 
services of religion to those under the sentence of the law, 


1 Cod. Theod., lib. xi. tit. 27. 


2 Life of Howard (Field’s), p. 4. 
3 [bid., p. 65. 


PRISON-REFORM UNDER CHRISTIANITY. 401 


the gradual avoidance of degrading and useless penalties, 
the employment of more humane and conscientious prison 
officers, the use of reformatory as well as deterrent mea- 
sures in the treatment of offenders, in fine, the best features 
of the “Irish” prison system—all these are the clear 
and natural fruits of Christian teachings. We know of no 
similar influence among those sentenced by law or of 
similar effects under any other religious system. To the 
modern believer as well as to the ancient, Christ still goes 
down among the weary and heavy-laden, the prisoner and 
captive, and attempts to lift the heavy burdens, and the 
true follower seeks to walk in His footsteps. The great 
conventions of prison reformers and those who would ele- 
vate and improve the lot of convicts and prisoners, held in 
all civilized countries, are only another appropriate expres- 
sion of human sympathy under the inspiration of the 
“Teacher of Galilee.” 

The immense reforms in the prison system of the 
United States are a striking feature of the times. We 
read in American colonial history that a preacher in the 
principal Philadelphia prison was obliged to be supported 
by a cannon with a lighted match at hand; that the Con- 
necticut prisoners were kept in one place! in underground 
cells dripping with moisture, where thejight of day never 
penetrated, and where vice and riot prevailed ; that in the 
leading city, New York, old and young, male and female, 
sane and insane, innocent and criminal, were confined in 
jails together ; that drunkenness, debauchery, profanity and 
rioting ruled in these places, so that all prisons and jails 
became schools of crime. Neither hope nor religion ever 
entered these abodes of misery. ) 

It was the Christian spirit that inspired “the first great 
effort in the United States to save the youthful criminal, 


1 The Simsbury mine. 
DD 


402 GESTAVCH KISS. 


in founding in 1824 the first American Reformatory—the 
New York House of Refuge. The same inspiration has 
eradually lightened the fate of the prisoner and sought to 
reform him, until, in 1874, the following were some of the 
practical fruits of this great influence among the re- 
formatories of the United States. 

There were, in 1874, in twenty States and one Territory, 
thirty-four reformatories for youthful criminals ; they owned 
in the aggregate 6,153 acres of land; the total estimated . 
value of buildings and land, with the personal property, 
was $7,826,480 ; the averagesnumber of inmates was 8,924, 
and the whole number received since their opening was 
91,402, of whom 77,678 were boys and’ 13,724 girls) ane 
whole number of persons engaged in this work was 771, 
and the total annual cost for maintenance was $1,358,885, 
or $182, (about 430) for each inmate. Three-fourths of 
the inmates, or nearly seventy thousand, are reported as 
permanently reformed. These figures, however, are to be 
received with great caution, as there is no accurate tabu- 
lating of the results. 

Educational Charities.—It may be urged that the sym- 
pathy with the prisoner is indeed humane, and a mark of 
progress in compassionate feeling, but that it does not 
necessarily advance mankind or prevent crime in the 
future. In all countries, and especially in the United 
States, have arisen, however, movements of Christian 
philanthropy directly inspired by the “Friend of man,” 
having for their objects to root out criminality and 
pauperism in the germ and prevent the formation of 
‘criminal classes. We allude to the educational charities 
for children, especially in the large cities like New York. 
‘This is a feature of moral advancement unknown to 
antiquity and scarcely heard of except where Christian 
teaching has reached. 


CHARITIES FOR CHILDREN. 403 


These charities take the homeless and unfortunate victim 
of poverty or vice—the child: they provide him shelter and 
protection while cultivating his self-help ; they find him 
labour, give him education, put him under the best habits 
of civilization, throw around him religious influences, and 
at length place him in a compassionate family on a farm 
where he can work in the ground. 

If a girl, devoted women of the fortunate classes seek to 
lead her to better things. The habits in which she has 
lived are met by influences of industry, order and purity ; 
she is improved day by day, until at length she too is 
transplanted to a good home. 

The agencies through which these influences are con- 
veyed, the lodging-house, industrial school, emigration plan, 
and the like are skilfully contrived to elevate the class 
through natural means. It is not surprising that after 
twenty-five years! of these charities the prison statistics 
of New York should show distinct and encouraging evi- 
dences of the diminution of juvenile crime and vagrancy 
against many local evils and obstacles, and that fifty 
thousand children are reported as rescued from the vice 
and misery of New York and turned into self-supporting 
and industrious farmers and housekeepers. 

These and similar movements throughout England and 
the United States are a plain and natural fruit of Chris- 
tianity. They are inspired by Him who bore the burdens 
of men and was especially the Friend of the poor. There 
seems no reason why, under the same impulse, they should 
not increase and become one of the great curative move- 
ments of society to remedy its most threatening evils. 

It is almost a common place to say that all the varied 
and blessed institutions of charity throughout Christendom, 
all the asylums, hospitals and reformatories, the provisions 


‘See Zhe Dangerous Classes of New York, by the Author. 


404 | GESTA CHRISTI 


for the lame, blind and deaf, for the idiot and insane, for 
the sick of every possible disease, for the widow and 
orphan and homeless, for the aged and infirm, are only 
blossoms and fruit of the life and teachings and death of 
the great Benefactor. They are the true victories of Christ 
—the Gesta Christ. 

To these must be added a more humble but not less 
significant expression of sympathy in modern society, the 
efforts to care for the dumb animals, those patient instru- 
ments of man’s convenience; to alleviate their inevitable 
sufferings, to restrain the tyranny of their masters, and to 
prevent any unnecessary pain. , 

Many societies have been formed in the United States 
and other countries to prevent cruelty to animals and to 
check any useless suffering in scientific operations with 
them. There is little doubt that these compassionate 
efforts, which find their strongest support among women, 
have made the lot of dumb brutes much more endurable 
in many civilized countries. | 

They are not, however, peculiar to the followers of 
Christianity. The Buddhists have often been equally 
merciful, and in some Oriental countries great sympathy 
for animals seems consistent with great indifference to 
human suffering.! 


Humanization of Punitshments.—One remarkable advance | 
in humanity, due to religious forces, should not. be 
passed over—the gradual mitigation of severe and “ afflic- 
tive” punishments to those sentenced by the law, and the 
doing away with degrading penalties, We do not regard 
the Christian system as necessarily opposed to the death 
punishment in all cases, but as aiming to limit it to only 


1 See passage quoted, ape XXXVI. page 447, of a traveller’s ex- 
perience in: India. 


LAHEY DEALITIPENALT Y, 405 


the most extreme instances of crime. Nor are the Christian 
teachings responsible for any of the false sentiment of the 
modern world towards those guilty of crime. The teach- 
ings of Christ and the apostles evidently do not look upon 
death as the greatest of evils; nor do they discourage 
severe penalties on wrong-doers. There is no direct 
instruction in regard to the death penalty any more than 
on a thousand similar topics. The inference from the 
teachings might fairly be, that so valuable a thing as 
human life, with the tremendous destinies of the soul, must 
be very carefully and reverently dealt with, not sacrificed 
except for the very highest interests of the community, and 
that humanity towards even the most guilty must guide 
human actions. It is certainly possible that under these 
principles the punishment by death will gradually pass 
away, as have the strafpado and the rack. 

The natural effect of these teachings, however, from the 
beginning was against any degrading penalties, Even the 
laws of Constantine show this, where they forbid any 
marring of the beauty and dignity of the human face 
made in the Divine image.! 

They equally oppose any penalty which brutalizes the 
offender or the spectator. The criminal may deserve 
severe pains and punishment, but this Faith would en- 
courage no penalty which in its nature makes him worse, 
or which in its natural effect degrades the on-lookers and 
society in general. It does not object to the offender 
suffering pain and loss, but this must be of a nature to 
reform him and benefit others. The penalty must not be 
useless, or degrading, or crushing, or brutalizing to the 
world. The prison administration is to be guided by love y 
and severity combined. 


\ Cod. Theod., lib 1x+ tit. 40.9 1,:2. 


406 GESTA CHRISTI. 


The progress in this matter has been remarkable in the 
modern ages. In the Classical and Middle Age periods, 
such punishments as crucifixion, exposure to wild beasts, 
burying alive, impaling, tearing to pieces, and breaking on 
the wheel were common. | 

In the Middle Ages, the powers of human invention 
were continually employed in devising instruments and 
machines for the production of pain. 

Screws were invented for compressing the thumbs ; 
straight boots of iron for enclosing the legs, between which 
and the flesh wedges were driven by mallets; racks of 
various and hideous forms, capable of occasioning the most 
exquisite agony, were constantly devised. We have 
already described the strappado' (p. 181) ; another agonis- 
ing punishment was “picketing,” where the offender was 
suspended so that the weight of his body was supported 
by a spike on which he was made to stand with one foot ;* 
and still another was the use of the “wooden horse,”® 
a narrow ledge or board on which the criminal was made 
to sit astride with weights fastened to his legs. Ducking 
or half drowning was often employed even for trivial 
offences. 

Bentham relates* that a description of the various 
methods of inflicting torture and punishment which had 
been in use in the Austrian dominions, was ordered by the 
Empress Maria Theresa to be drawn up, this investigation 
being made with a view to ameliorate the existing laws. 
A large folio volume was accordingly put forth, containing 
engravings of the instruments of torture, and all the 
methods of execution. The book was only exposed for 
sale a few days when the prime minister, Prince Kaunitz, 


1 See Bentham’s Works, vol. 1, p. 413. 
2 [bid. 3 [oid. 
4 Vol. i. p. 413. 


CRUEL PUNISHMENTS. 407 


ordered it to be suppressed, for fear that it would inspire a 
horror of the laws. 

In England, high treason was punished by dragging at 
the horse’s tail, through the streets, from the prison to the 
place of execution; or by plucking out and burning the 
entrails, while the patient was yet alive; or by hanging 
by the neck so as not to destroy life; also by beheading, 
quartering, and the exposure of the fragments of the body 
in such places as the king should direct. Under the pro- 
sress of the humane sentiment, this has all been changed 
to beheading and hanging. 

Even in this century most frightful punishments were 
inflicted in the British West Indies on negroes breaking the 
laws—punishments as savage as anything in the bloody 
history of the past. In the time of George III, public 
whipping for dog-stealing was common in England, and 
the common law enforced the slitting of nostrils and 
cutting of ears for many offences. In the reign of Henry 
VIII., the mere drawing blood in the palace in a quarrel 
was punished by the loss of the right hand; and in that 
of Elizabeth, “the export of sheep” brought after it the 
loss of the left hand. Branding and whipping have been 
common in all countries. 

Within fifty years, men have been hanged in England 
for sheep-stealing and stealing in a house; and in the early 
history of the United States, many offences, like forgery, 
stealing, and horse-stealing brought the death penalty 
after them. 

In Massachusetts, under the early legislation after the 
Revolution, ten different crimes were punished with death, 
among them being burglary; blasphemy was punished 
with pillory and stripes till the year 1829 ; branding was 
employed for several offences. In Pennsylvania, in 1776, 
twenty crimes were liable to the death penalty, among 


408 GESTA®’ CARYSTS. 


them such offences as witchcraft and counterfeiting. In 
Virginia and Kentucky, twenty-seven offences were pun- 
ished by death or maiming; among them perjury, the 
destroying or concealing of a will, the obtaining of money 
or goods on false pretences, horse-stealing, and the like. 
In New York, on several occasions in the eighteenth 
century, negroes were burned alive for extreme crimes, and 
the tread-mill was in use as late as 1822. 

The public whipping-post now only survives in some of 
the old Slave States in America, and will soon be ranked 
with the pillory or the strappado. Whipping as a penalty 
is still inflicted by law in England for very brutal offences, 
such as wife-beating and the like. The humane opinion, 
however, of the United States is opposed to it, on the 
ground that it brutalizes and degrades not only the 
criminal, but his associates. A result of this and other 
causes is, that in no other country are brutal crimes so 
rare. The tread-mill, also, is mainly abolished there. 
Whipping is still sometimes employed by prison officials 
on refractory criminals, and other severe prison penalties - 
are used (often too freely), but public opinion is adverse to 
their frequent employment. All public degrading penalties, 
such as the stocks, the pillory, branding and the like, have 
mainly passed away in the United States. In some of the 
old Slave States gangs of negro prisoners, are still em- 
ployed on public works; but, in general, punishment is 
private and reformatory. 

Among other merciful reforms, executions are made 
private, and are only inflicted where murder is clearly 
proved and of an aggravated character. They are destined 
evidently to be less and less common. 

Liprisonment for Debt.—One of the frightful abuses of 
the past was imprisonment for debt. It is perfectly just 
that a person should be punished, who wrongfully and 


DEBTORS’ PRISONS. 409 


knowingly defrauds another of his property. But so large 
a proportion of debts are incurred with the best of motives, 
accident and misfortune so often cause inability to pay, 
and the degradation of the debtor to the level of the 
criminal and pauper has so bad an influence on a large 
class, that Christianized and humane sentiment is opposed 
to imprisonment as a punishment for non-payment ; while 
the modern experience is that the severe punishment does 
not necessarily tend to make the community more honest 
or the recovery of debts easier. 

The accounts transmitted of the treatment of debtors 
in England and America in the past century, are harrow- 
ing. Thus it is said that in the eighteenth century, four 
thousand unhappy individuals were committed to prison 
every year for misfortune and poverty, and treated like 
criminals and outcasts. “One indiscreet compact could 
doom a wretch to a life-long confinement;”! a small debt 
exposed the unhappy person to perpetual imprisonment. 
Oglethorpe succeeded in 1728, with the help of parliament, 
in delivering from jails great multitudes of these unhappy 
creatures. 

Inthe United States, even as late as 1820, it was 
estimated that there were as many as 3,000 of these un- 
fortunate persons confined in the prisons of Massachusetts ; 
10,000 in New York; (7,000Kin Pennsylvania ; 3,000 


i ¢ F 
, Pah A_, 
ef Spon? 


a 
¥ 


Maryland, and a like scan in other States. In m many, . 
of these debtors’ prisons no provision was made for sick- / 


ness, or even for ordinary cleanliness or comfort. There ! 
was often no separation of sexes; and these victims of” 
misfortune were confined with robbers, vagrants and mur- 
derers. 

Between 1821 and 1845, imprisonment for debt in the 


1 Bancroft. 


[je Fer Pain - 


rp 


~>~— 


410 GESTA CHRISTE 


various United States was abolished, except in cases 
where fraud was reasonably suspected. 


The bloody era of the past, when man under the forms 
of law could inflict such useless torture and pain on the 
offender, is over, The humanity of Christ enters the 
prison, and fills it with hope and the sentiment of human 
brotherhood; it excludes bloody and useless and de- 
grading penalties; it aims at reform as well as punish. 
ment; it secks to do away with the gallows by the power 
of the school and the religious teacher. 

The Sunday.—It is not enough considered by students 
of progress, how great a gift to the labouring classes and 
to the whole world is the Christian Sunday. It has be- 
come so great a necessity to the civilized world, that the 
wonder is how the non-Christian races or classic peoples 
were able to do without such a day. 

Plato says somewhere that leisure is necessary to.the 
acquisition of virtue, and that therefore no working man 
can acquire it. Plutarch calls it one of the most beautiful 
and happy inventions of Lycurgus, that he obtained for 
the citizens the greatest leisure by forbidding them to 
occupy themselves with any mercenary work. ? 

Christianity early obtained for the working classes of 
the Roman empire this great blessing, and not through 
the Greek method, of creating a class of helpless helots, 
but by the institution of the Lord’s Day. 

Under the prodigious impulse of the leading races of 
modern times toward production and the acquiring of 
material wealth, there would have come, without some 
such day, an absolute breaking down of the physical power, 
a wearing out of the brain, and a corresponding moral 

1 Codey Wi. AIT; 01s 
die By Yoshio. 


LHE LORDS) DAYATOCLABOURERS. Ail 


degeneracy. In fact the Christian Sabbath may be said 
to have saved the modern European and Anglo-American 
races. Had the greed for money never known an enforced 
rest; had the wheels of the factory, the hum of the market 
and din of business sounded through the streets seven days 
as now through six, and no customary day called away 
thoughts to things not bought or sold and to principles 
unseen and eternal, the modern people might have run 
down to the lowest point of materialism. 

iemlorcds Day is#thes oreatest ‘extertial- cift: ofthe 
Christian religion to the working classes. The labourer is 
insured his rest. His production is apparently cut short 
one-seventh, but as in the limiting the hours of a day’s 
labour, he is found to effect more in the year, owing to the 
refreshment and rest given, and his moral value is in- 
creased. Where the Sunday is made a social and religious 
day (as in New England) without excessive strictness, 
the-working man or woman returns to the task, revived, 
and morally as well as physically strengthened. 

A religious Sunday is the best safeguard against the 
vice of the labouring class, intemperance. 

In the chapters on Roman Law, we have shown what a 
step in humanity was the enforced rest of the Sunday to 
Roman slaves, after the empire became nominally Christian. 

The Anglo-Saxon law under Christian influences, was 
equally regardful of the rest of the Sunday to the British 
slave and serf. In all countries under the nominal teach- 
ings of Jesus, that day has relaxed the muscles of toil, 
wiped away the sweat of incessant labour, and restored 
the worker to his family, reminding him that he is some- 
thing beside an instrument of gain, and that he has 
other wants than those of earth. 

The business and professional man of modern days owes 
fully as much to this blessed day. It is a festival of 


412 GLSTA CARLSTE 


humanity ; it reminds the fortunate of their duties to the 
unfortunate; it calls away the mind from things material 
to the ane which belong to all times. It compels the. 
scheming brain to rest. It is the day above all to remem- 
ber Him who has brought such unmingled blessings to 
humanity. 

If the world by any madness or degeneracy should ever 
renounce its faith in the supernatural, it would be com- 
pelled to renew the Sabbath under some other name, so 
indispensable is it for human progress. 

We may surely count the Christian Sunday as one of 
the most blessed institutions conferred on the race by 
this faith. 


CHAPTER XXXII. 
CO-OPERATION AND PAUPERISM. 


CHRISTIANITY, as we have frequently said, only touches 
indirectly on the distribution of the profits of labour. It 
inculcates constant benevolence, unselfishness, and con- 
_tinual imparting of wealth to the necessitiesof others ;_ it 


discourages excessive accumulation, and teaches irc “4 


sympathy with the poor and labouring classes. There is 
an ideal taught by it in regard to property, which, like its 
ideal in respect to war, mankind has not yet reached. 
Property is evidently to be held. for the good of others, 
and not for selfish enjoyment or the aggrandizement of 
a family. The employers of labour are to be guided by 
the golden rule, and to hold each one employed as a 
“brother in the Lord.” The modes in which this benevo- 
lent principle is to be expressed to the world will be 
various. Without doubt, “co-operation” is precisely in 
the direction of the Christian law. 

It tends to reduce the selfishness of trade and com- 
petition, it diminishes the deceit and falsehood which 
belong to some branches of business, it makes the buyer 
and seller one in interest and brotherly feeling, and it 
plants among men the seeds of brotherhood which Christ 
teaches. Its obvious influence is to bring into one body 


the labourers and capitalists of the world, making them 
413 


neat 


4I4 GESTAN CHRIST], 


| feel that their’ interests are the same, and their rights 
_ equally to be respected. 


This does not, however, include as a corollary that in- 
dividual property shall come to an end. It may indeed 
tend to limit its accumulation, but the more probable 
tendency of the Christian principle will be in the future 
towards a careful distribution of wealth for the good of 
others, in promoting science, art, charities, and education, 
and in curing the inevitable ills of humanity. | 

Commerce, production, and trade as they are now 
conducted, cannot be considered the final and completed 
condition of mankind. 

Selfishness and dishonesty are too much its features to 
be consistent with the Christian ideal. In all probability 
some form of co-operation will be the final and Christian 
form in which production and distribution will develop 
themselves, where the interests of customer and dealer, of 
manufacturer and workman, of capitalist and labourer, 
are correlative, and Christian and just principles govern all. 

_Commiunism:—~T here is-no-doubt in-many--of-the-aspira- 
tions-and-aims-of-communism, a certain-marked-sympathy 
or harmony. with-the-ideals. of. Christianity, _ 

What is best in—it--has~come fromthe teachings~ of 
Galilee: The sense of human brotherhood between rich 
and poor, the sympathy with the unhappy labouring 
masses of the world, the duty of allowing every human 
being the highest possible use of his faculties, the aversion 
to the deceit and fraud so often characterising commerce, 
and the opposition to the selfishness of competition, the 
horror of war of the Socialists, the aspect of property as 
a fund for the good of all—all these are plainly reflec- 
tions from that light which shone eighteen centuries ago, 
from the hills of Judea. 

Some of the Socialistic writers feel this; thus Proudhon 


CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM. AIS 


says, “Love thy neighbour as thyself, and society will be 
perfect ; love thy neighbour, and all distinctions of prince 
and shepherd, of rich and poor, of learned and ignorant 
disappear, all the contrarieties of human interests vanish ; 
love thy neighBour, and happiness with labour, without | 
any anxiety for the future will fill thy days.” ? 

Marlo? also says, “ The heathenish principle is, grant to | 
the few enjoyment at the expense of the many; Christian 
principle demands a moral regard for those natural con- | 
ditions which ensure general prosperity with a view to | 
effect the highest possible happiness for all in due propor- 
tion.” 

Christianity of course recommends no definite system 
for applying its humane principles, and therefore has no 
sympathy with Socialism in its plans for grouping human 
beings, or the power it would give to the State, or its 
hostility to property as such, or its methods of dividing the 
returns from labour, or its phalansteries or communities ; 
indeed the Christian view of marriage and the family 
is directly opposed to that of many (though not all) 
Socialists. | 

The point of view however of both is somewhat similar, 
and some of the objects identical. 

The Christian, like the Socialist, feels that this depres- 
sion and abject poverty and dependence of great masses of 
human beings is not the ideal of humanity ; that the fearful 
inequalities of human condition, the immense wealth of the 
few and the bitter penury or daily anxiety of the many, 
the intense selfishness of competition and the frauds or 
deceits of trade, the greed for money and struggle for the | 
prizes of life, do not belong to the kingdom of God on 
earth, promised by the Master, or to any human condition 


1 Syst. des Consid. Econ., vol. i. p. 329. 
2 Quoted by Kaufmann, Soczalzsm, p. 158. 


416 GLSEA CST RLS 1a) 


which the Friend of man might reasonably think a reward 
of his desires and his struggles. The Christian holds the 
key to the final solution of all these problems. How and 
_by what various means it shall be applied: he cannot fully 
say ; the method must be the result of “careful scientific 
| study of all the conditions. 
Socialism as interfering with individual development, or 
_ producing a monotony of life, or destroying the identity 
of the family, has no sympathy from Christianity. 
— -Insurance-—The greatest practical benevolent discovery 
of modern life, and one destined yet to produce enormous 
effects in diminishing poverty and relieving misfortune— 
the application of insurance to human ills—is not directly 
a fruit of Christianity, and yet no doubt in the stimulus 
given to the benevolent feelings by this Faith, is to be 
found its indirect source. Insurance is the application 
of the savings of the fortunate to the assistance of the 
unfortunate, and yet not necessarily through benevolent 
motives. ‘This ingenious device takes advantage of a self- 
regarding impulse to promote the good of all. Its appli- 
cation more and more to relieve the misfortunes of the 
labouring classes through government annuities, private 
life insurance provisions against accident, sickness, cala- 
mity and old age made by savings in time of health and 
prosperity and guaranteed by the whole community, will 
be one of the greatest blessings of modern society, and 
will undoubtedly be stimulated, if not caused by the influ- 
ence of Christ in the world. We do not dwell on this 
important topic because it is not a feature of progress: 
directly produced by the Christian religion, though under 
its influence; yet we regard it as the mode in which as 
civilization advances wealth will be especially distributed. 
It is not an unlikely eventuality that in a distant future 
all men and women can be guarded against the inevitable 


INSURANCE AGAINST POVERTY. 417 


calamities and losses of life, and thus preserved from sink- 
ing into the lowest depths of misery, by a wise system of 
insurance by society or government—the insured contri- 
buting a fixed annual payment during health and strength 
(itself a preservative’ from pauperism), and the State 
taking charge of the funds, and appropriating from taxa- 
tion enough to fill out the necessary annuity. It will bea 
kind of Christian communism, but not of a nature to pro- 
duce dependence, because the ultimate enjoyment of the 
insurance would depend on savings made during health 
and prosperity; but it would be a poor law, or taxation 
of the fortunate for the benefit of the unfortunate, yet in 
a mode to promote self-respect and human brotherhood. 
Like the distribution of the surplus of the rich now made 
by taxation for schools, it would not be an appropriation 
of wealth which would embitter the rich or pauperize the 
poor. 

Perhaps the best form of insurance, as in harmony with 
Christianity, would be voluntary annuity-associations, made 
from benevolent motives by the fortunate, and where the 
surplus needed over the annual premiums to form com- 
fortable annuities, was contributed by the charitable. 

As we have often argued in this work, the influence of 
the great Master is directly to lessen one of the greatest 
of human ills—Pauperism. 

The self-control, sobriety, temperance and moderation 
He teaches, tend to a certain control over circumstances, 


The good-will He encourages, brings sympathy and help p 


from others..The great sources of poverty are idleness, 
_ intemperance and vice. 2 / 

The Christian, other things being equal, is less likely to 
be very poor, and a pauper he cannot easily be,—that is 
he cannot have that spirit of dependence, idleness and 


dishonesty, which are the essentials of pauperism. If by 


EE 


418 | GESTA CHRISTI. 


misfortune he come to the lowest depths of human ills, he 
bears as a greater One hath taught him to bear, and does 
not become degraded in spirit. Having a sense of his 
great dignity as a child of God, and one for whom Christ 
hath lived and died, he is less likely to become a parasite on 
society And ever being in the mental habit of looking for- 
_ ward to the judgment of another life, he will be the more apt 
to provide for the ills of this; so under Christianity society 
tends, as has often been seen on the rugged soil and under 
the harsh climate of New England, to throw off pauperism 
and eliminate poverty. Many villages are known in that 
region, apparently so little favoured otherwise by Provi- 
dence, where not a pauper and scarcely anvabjectly poor 
person can be found for miles around -the causes of this 
good fortune being mainly moral. 

It is not claimed that Religion alone in future ages can 
remove pauperism from the world, but the Christian belief 
will tend towards a more just distribution of property; it 
will promote temperance and good morals ; it will stimulate 
co-operation between labourers and between labour and 
capital; it will encourage many forms of insurance, and 
above all elevate and train the character, so that the human 
being, though unfortunate, cannot be degraded, and thus 
under the influence of Christ on the world, the labouring 
classes will be less likely to fall into extreme poverty, and 
if they do will be more readily assisted, or will not sink 
morally. | 

The Church in past history, especially in Europe, has s 
often been on the side of power and of the oppressor ; it 
apparently now feels so little sympathy there in the great 
movements of social reform, that the labourer and the over- 
burdened worker may well be pardoned if he do not behold 
at all in Christ His true form, that of the Friend of the 
poor and heavy-laden ; but gradually as light spreads, even 


THE FRIEND OF THE POOR. 4g 


the working classes of Europe will see that no influence in 
human history has ever done so much to remove the heavy 
burdens on labouring people, to produce such equitable dis- 
tribution of wealth, to lessen the ills of poverty, and give 
dignity to the humble toiler, and everywhere to promote 
human brotherhood, as the doctrine and life of the Teacher 

of Galilee. , 


Cabet, a socialistic writer, well says: 


“If Christianity had been interpreted and applied in the spirit of 
Jesus Christ, if it had been well known and faithfully practised by the 
numerous portions of Christians who are animated by a sincere piety, 
and who have only need to know truth well to follow it, this Christi. 
anity, its morals, its philosophy, its precepts would have sufficed and 
would still suffice to establish a perfect society and political organi- 
zation, to deliver humanity from the evil which weighs it down, and to 
assure the happiness of the human race on the earth.”! 


a 


1 Le vrai Christianisme. Preface. 


CHAPTER XXXIIL 
FREE TRADE.—HUMANITY.—LIBERAU GOVERNMENT, 


THE progress of mankind under the Christian ideal has 
been continually towards greater unity of races and nations. 
The Greek and Roman contempt for the foreigner has 
passed away; the Middle Age distrust and hostility to 
the stranger and “far-comer” has mainly vanished, except 
among non-Christian races, Different nations are approach- 
ing one another in feeling, ideas, habits and interests. 
There still remain, however, the relics of a more barbaric 
past in the separation made between different peoples or 
provinces by taxes and tariff duties, Yet even here there 
is progress. It is only about 900 years since a London 
merchant, trading with York, Chester or Bristol, paid 
duties and taxes as he does now with New York and Havre, 
and it was only in 1011 A.D. that a law was passed estab- 
lishing free trade between London and other English 
towns.! 

On the European continent, the Rhine for centuries was 
crossed with incessant lines of tariff at every border of 
a petty province, and freedom of commerce was only 


1 The men of London are to be safe and free over all England, and 
in all sea-ports, from toll, transit-duty and tonnage and all other duties 
(Hen. I. 2,4). “If any one takes toll or custom from the citizens of 
London, the citizens may take as much from the burg with damages ” 
Cibenwla2,.9); 


420 


FREE TRADE, 421 


secured by armed leagues of cities ; in like manner, every 
large river was impeded by revenue exactions. In Ger- 
many, the baron or rural prince descended from his moun- 
tain castle and levied what taxes he chose on the passing 
-merchant. The value of an estate in Germany in the 
Middle Ages was publicly measured by its nearness to any 
point where various roads met, and thus the opportunities 
for vexatious tariffs and plunderings were the greatest. 

In France, as we have seen, the old savage feeling towards 
the stranger, which lingers in legislation still, showed itself 
during hundreds of years, in the odious droit d’aubaine. It 
was only in the close of the last century, as we stated before, 
that this right was abolished, and it is only in this century 
that the last disabilities of the stranger have been removed 
in French legislation. This relic of the Middle Ages still 
exists under the Common Law of England, and under the 
statutes of many American States, which impose disabilities 
on the right of aliens to hold reai estate. 

The savage “wrecker’s right” or droit de naufrage, is a 
similar remain of the old savagery which prevailed, as we 
have shown, throughout Europe for many centuries. The 
unfortunate crew and passengers of wrecked vessels could 
be imprisoned and enslaved, and their property reverted to 
the lord of the coast or to the crown. It is only in modern 
times that this barbarism has been completely done away 
with. 

free Trade—Christianity, as such, has nothing to say 
as to fiscal systems and financial or economical theories. 
It only increases human sympathy and struggles against 
human selfishness. But the great ideas which have been at 
the basis of modern political economy—the principles that 
theinterests of all nations are really one; that the losses 
of one are the losses‘of all, and the gains of one become 
finally the gains of the whole; that selfish obstructions to 


422 GESTA CHRISTI. 


trade and intercourse re-act at last against the power which 
places them, so that the most liberal will end by being the 
most prosperous—these conceptions have received their 
ereatest impulse from the teachings of Religion. One of the 
earliest statements of the effect of the Christian belief on 
freedom of trade is put forth in 1553, by Edward VI. king 
of England, in a letter! carried by two navigators, Sir 
Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor, starting ona 
voyage to discover Cathaye. 

The letter sets forth the disposition to cultivate the love 
and friendship of his kind, implanted in man by the 
Almighty, and the consequent duty to maintain and aug- 
ment this desire, and “to show good atfection to those who 
come from, jarre Countries, ren. weqee 


“And if it be right and equity to show such humanitie to all men, 
doubtlesse the same might chiefly to be showed to merchants, who, 
wandering about the world, search both the land and the sea, to carry 
such good and profitable things as are found in their countries to 
remote regions and kingdoms, and again to bring from the same such 
things as they find there commodious for their own countries. 
for the God of Heaven and Earth, greatly providing for mankind, 
would not that things should be found in one region, to the end that 
all should have need of another, that by this means, friendship might 
be established among all men, and every one seeke to gratifye all.” 


As liberal ideas have, century after century, more and 
more taken possession of men’s minds, there has been an 
increasing readiness for unrestrained intercourse and un- 
shackled trade. The prosperity of large countries with 
varied productions—like the United States or Germany— 
where perfect internal free trade prevails through all 
interests and communities, suggests the feasibility of larger . 
unions of different countries and races, and foretokens the 
more complete and grander union of all nations in the dis- 
tant future, when the productions of one shall be opén to all, 


1 Quoted by Ward, Laws of Natzons, vol. ii., p. 332. 


PROGRESS IN ECONOMICAL IDEAS. 423 


and all men shall buy and sell wherever it seemeth them 
good, without obstruction of tax or tariff—a day in which 
wealth shall be more evenly distributed among all human 
beings, than thus far history has known. 

In this matter, fortunately, the selfish impulse which is 
struggled against by Christianity, is found on the broad 
scale and in a long period to be the injurious one. It will 
become more and more evident that for countries like 
Southern Germany to tax the manufacturers of North 
Germany is only a little less unprofitable than taxing the 
manufacturers of Belgium; and for Illinois to obstruct 
the entrance of the products of Massachusetts is a pro- 
ceeding of the same kind as shutting out the manufactures 
of England. So extended and complicated are the con- 
nections of nations, that the true effects of selfishness are 
. finally made more apparent than they are in narrow and 
‘personal relations. As civilization advances the Free 
Trade Powers will be more prosperous, and will confirm, 
by their success, the worth of the principle of humanity as 
a prudential maxim. The interests of one will be seen to ° 
be the interests of all. 

Some of the old economical ideas of the past have been 
already removed by the progress of right reason and 
sentiments of justice, and fruitful causes of dissensions 
and wars taken away. Thus the exclusive possession 
by a nation of gold mines, or a rich colony, is no longer 
considered a loss to other nations; and the flow of the 
precious metals to the markets of one power is no longer 
regarded as necessarily an injury to the exporting power. 
A great calamity of one people is now known not to be 
a blessing to any other. 

The tendency of the new ideas in political economy ts 
clearly towards a greater unity of all states and nations. 

In the meantime, the Christian influence, as in regard 


424 'GES TAS CHRISTI: 


to war, will be towards a compromise between the ideal 
of Christianity and the necessities of the times—a com- 
promise ever approaching unchecked intercourse and un- 
limited trade, looking towards the time when all human 
beings shall be acknowledged to be of one blood and one 
family. 


Another expression of the new humanity may be found 
in the charitable aid and sympathy, extended by one 
country to another in cases of public calamity. This 
century has been peculiarly rich in such expressions of a 
common compassion. They are the legitimate fruits of 
the Faith from Judea. The aid given by the United 
States to the sufferers from the Irish famine, to the victims 
of floods in France and Hungary, to the wounded in 
Fraifce and Germany in the Franco-German War, to the 
struggle for Hungarian Independence, and similar gifts by 
the British people to sufferers from fire and accident and 
pestilence in America, and all other countries, as well as 
to those striving for liberty,.are familiar instances of the 
new expressions of sympathy which now binds all nations 
together. 

No such expressions of common feeling among inde- 
pendent nations were known to the classic world, or are 
witnessed now outside of professed Christianity. 


With this advance in international sympathy may be 
considered the higher principles which govern the relations 
of civilized with inferior races. The old notion for which 
the Church is so much responsible, that a Christian nation 
discovering a barbarous land has absolute power over the 
property and persons of the pagan barbarians, has nearly 
passed away. The effort of every great nation, or at 
least the ideal of their conduct, towards barbarous and 


INFERIOR RACES. 425 


inferior races is to elevate and civilize them. We say 
this, acknowledging how wofully inconsistent the conduct 
of individuals and nations has often been towards weaker 
or more savage peoples. The dealings of the Americans 
with the Indians, the wars of the English with the Chinese, 
Afghans, Zulus, and others seem to show no advance in 
the Christian sentiment of compassion towards the weak 
or justice to the inferior. Yet all who are familiar with 
the United States know that the most persistent and 
honest efforts are made now to civilize and improve 
these tribes; and though individuals entirely forget their 
compassion and religion in dealing with these unfortunate 
savages, yet the best classes and the government are 
honestly trying to atone for the sins of the past, and to 
do the best for this decaying people. 

The British people also in the past few years have 
so far governed the instincts of pugnacity and pride, as 
to abandon an unjust campaign against an inferior race 
(the Zulus), even after a defeat; and to retreat from the 
country of another weaker people (the Afghans), which 
they had conquered, merely because the Christianized con- 
science of the nation regarded the war as useless or unjust. 
These are surely considerable victories for the Christian 
principle, and could not have happened even a century 
ago, 

Then the efforts of the English to civilize such tribes 
as the Fijis," are a new feature in history. 

Such public measures as the attempts to force opium on 
China, and some features in the administration of India, 
are, we admit, miserable exceptions to this influence of 
the Christian faith on the relations of nations with inferior 
powers. But, on the whole, it must be admitted that there 
has been great progress in this matter; and that the 


* See Miss Cumming’s book on the Fijis. 


426 GESTA CHRISTI. 


tendency is more and more for the powerful races to be 
cuided in their dealings with inferior by humane and 
Christian principles. We are far enough in this from the 
Christian ideal, but we are approaching it. 

As particular evidence of this new spirit of compassion 
we may also mention the treatment by the Amenican 
government of those whom they considered “ rebels,” at 
the close of the Civil War in 1865. | 

The struggle had been one of extraordinary intensity 
and bitterness. A million of lives are believed to have 
been sacrificed on both sides.. The President of the Union 
had been assassinated. According to the precedents of 
history, the victorious party and the central government 
would have been justified in executing the leaders of the 
rebellion and confiscating their property. Many persons 
advised this course. But the American people, in some 
directions, are singularly imbued with the compassion of 
the Christian teachings. The voice of religion and sound 
wisdom prevailed over the cries of revenge and passion ; 
and not a life was taken or a dollar confiscated by judicial 
process after the close of the war, for complicity in the 
rebellion. On the contrary, in afew years the “rebels” 
were restored to equal rights with all other citizens of the 
Union. ) | 

The very large sums spent and the devotion of thou- 
sands of lives by nearly all Christian countries to the 
work of teaching and improving distant and often savage 
peoples, is also an expression of the higher humanity 
and brotherhood, now a fixed part of the moral habits of 
leading nations. It is impossible to imagine a Greek or 
Roman society even thinking of such an object. The 
only thing parallel to it, is the efforts of the Buddhist 
priests to proselytize distant tribes. 

Popular E-ducation—The great movements for popular 


POPULAR EDUCATION. 427 


education are stimulated by the same principles of human- 
ity. The child of the poorest is equal to the richest in 
the new fraternity, and should have the same essential 
opportunities. In all countries even faintly touched by 
the Christian spirit of equality and brotherhood, there are 
widespread efforts to educate the masses. 

Schools are open to all. The rich are forced to give 
of their abundance for the education of the poor. Not 
only are common schools open to every class, but higher 
schools and colleges of learning are provided for the masses. 
Even laws are passed compelling attendance: and -pro- 
visions are made by individual charity for those who are 
poor and ill-clad. 

This is one of the most remarkable fruits of this Re- 
ligion in modern times. It is a forcible distribution of 
wealth to confer the highest possible blessings on the 
needy. It is a confession by society that the most 
ignorant, degraded and destitute person is a brother of 
the most fortunate, and must have every fair opportunity 
to exert his powers. ° 

If one could imagine the proposition made to the archai 
of Athens to tax the rich in order that the helots might 
learn to read the Greek classics; or a measure before the 
Roman senate to set apart a new revenue for providing 
teachers for the plebs and the slaves, one can rightly 
measure the progress of the Christian sentiment of equality 
in these eighteen centuries. 

And as one of the marked fruits of Christianity, a seed 
of good almost unknown to the classic times—we may 
mention the societies of lovers of men and of God, which 
exist now in all civilized countries. These associations 
may often be bigoted or worldly, still on the whole they 
attempt to teach men to love one another, to be just and 
temperate and pure and unselfish, No moralist can re- 


c 


428 GESTA CHRISTY, 


gard them with indifference. They must exert a profound 
influence on the whole morality of the modern world, 
and nothing of a popular nature like them was known 
before the Christian era—though there did exist under 
the Roman empire, certain “clubs” of a private char- 
acter, which were partly benevolent in their offices, and 
perhaps formed a basis for the later Christian Churches.! 

Asa more intangible result, but not less real, of this great 
moral power in the world, we should not omit the new 
Hope given to mankind. When one considers how vast 
a proportion of the human race are exposed to inevitable 
sorrows and disappointments, how many are crushed by 
poverty and oppression, what multitudes never rise to 
any condition of prosperity, and how all must go through 
pain, sickness and the shadow of death, it will be under- 
stood what an immense happiness such a faith as the 
Christian has spread among the poor, the oppressed, the 
sorrowful and unfortunate, and all the weary and heavy 
laden, for eighteen centuries, 

It has made the world a much brighter place to mul- 
titudes of people, has wiped away tears without number, 
has consoled the lot of countless slaves and captives, has 
upheld unnumbered widows, orphans and grief-laden, and 
has thrown a light and hope over millions of death-beds, 
These results may be alleged by the objector to be 
imaginary, yet they are none the less real. In counting 
the fruits of this Faith, we may fairly reckon the happi- 
ness scattered in the modern world as compared with the 
ancient. 

Among the somewhat intangible fruit, should not be 
forgotten the greater number of lives in modern times 
inspired and more or less pervaded by moral ideas and 
purposes, by purity and truth and universal good-will. 


’ See Loisster, De Rossi, and Le Blant, previously cited. 


LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. 429 


The few in all ages have felt moral impulses, but how 
many thousands exist now in every small community 
whose lives are conscientiously guided by these ideals and 
who often try to live up to them. This is a result which 
cannot always be measured in figures, but it none the less 
continually works upon the customs, laws and institutions 
of modern society, and has been the source of all the best 
reforms. 

All these are pre-eminently the Gesta Christi: for such 
lives are inspired by and modelled after Christ. 

Liberal Government—Christianity in itself teaches 
nothing in regard to any particular form of government. 
Christ appears to have inculcated submission to the then 
existing government of Rome—one of the most despotic 
of tyrannies. He probably saw that the best reform of po- 
litical institutions lay in the reform of individual character. 
He scattered seed which eventually must ripen in a har- 
vest of equal rights to all. Where men should do to one 
another as they would have others do to them; where the 
poorest and lowest was regarded as the child of God and 
friend of Christ, for whom He lived and to save whom He 
died, there after the course of ages could be no tyranny 
or political injustice, or inequality of rights, or legal op- 
pression. All persons and classes would eventually, as a 
matter of equal right, have a share in the government. 
Such principles lead ultimately, as to a logical conclusion, 
to each individual man or woman having a part, though 
perhaps not an equal part, in making the laws, choosing 
the rulers, and otherwise administering the affairs which 
relate to the welfare of all. What the form is by which 
this should be effected is a matter of indifference to 
Christian teachings. These merely demand equal rights, 
equal protection and an equal use of their faculties for all. 
But under their influence, the tendency of the world is 


430 | ESTA CHRISTI. 


plainly towards bestowing political rights on the masses ; 
towards parliamentary and democratic institutions. The 
races or peoples, which profess to be governed most 
directly by the words of Christ, the Anglo-Saxons, Anglo- 


Americans, and Northern Germans, are those most inclined 


to free institutions. The freedom they have gained in 
religion, and the habit of listening to the reported words 
of Christ rather than to ecclesiastical teachers, have led 
them towards freedom in government, and a respect for 
the rights of all. 

We do not mention these peoples as necessarily em- 
bodying or following all Christ’s principles more than the 
Romanic or Keltic races, but as applying them especially 
to political rights. 

A sceptical writer, distinguished for his eloquence and 
learning—Renan—has said that “the Gospels are the 
Democratic Book par excellence.” 

Great respect for the individual, equal justice to all, 
and a deep sense of humanity and equity—these are the 
natural fruits of the teaching of Jesus, and these lead to 
democracy. Undoubtedly, modern liberal institutions are 
an indirect effect of the religion first taught in Galilee. 
They seem nowhere to have flourished outside of Chris- 
tianity, though the sense of humanity and love of liberty 
belong to the whole race. No moral. instincts and no 
other religion have ever given such a-stimulus to liberty 
and such a sanction to justice for all. But it need not be 
said that this Faith is equally opposed to tyranny by, the 
people as to tyranny by the king ; and objects to license, 
disorder and aimless revolution, as it does to despotism. 

Its influences, have, as it were, only begun, in the political 
field. Under it, women are without doubt destined to take 
continually more part in the government of all civilized 


' Le Livre Democratique par excellence. (42. Aur., p. 634.) 


a J 


PESTILENCES. 431 


countries, and the working classes will be more and more 
relieved of inequalities pressing upon them. 

_ We cannot at present foresee all the consequences to 
result from these changes, certain to come. They will no 
doubt produce reactions and many difficulties. But they 
are in the line of human progress under the stimulus of 
this religion ; and their final result we cannot question. 


Diminution of Pestilences.—The reduced mortality from 
pestilence in modern times, and certain moral facts con- 
nected with these ravages, at first struck the mind of the 
writer as evidences of a sanitary progress in human history 
due to the influences of a pure religion. 

The fearful ravages of various diseases throughout the 
world, both in the classic period and in the Middle Ages, 
are hardly credible to modern ears. Taking a single 
century and one disease (the so called “Black Death”), 
we find from Hecker, that during the fourteenth century 
it raged from China to Iceland and Greenland,. almost 
.depopulating vast countries, the highways being covered 
with corpses in Syria and Armenia; the ships on the 
Mediterranean floating without sailors and stecrsmen ; in 
Europe two queens, and many bishops and distinguished 
persons- perishine ; in Germany alone, a million and a 
quarter, or more than half of the population, dying ; and 
in England, hardly one-tenth of the inhabitants escaping, 
and 50,000 corpses being buried in London alone. The 
total destruction was estimated in Europe and Asia, at 
23,840,000.! 

In every century, similar though not so destructive 
pestilences are mentioned. They arose from the non- 
Christian countries in almost all cases, and were stimulated 
in every country by intemperate and immoral habits. ~ 

1 Hecker, p. 85. 


432 GESTACGHRISTE, 


They found their appropriate s7d7, in which to ripen their 
seeds, in those wicked and heathenish centres of nominally 
Christian cities, which form in all ages exceptions to the 
rule and influence of Christianity. 

They have gradually diminished in power in modern 
times, though the non-Christian lands still form their source 
and centre. The most moral and religious populations aré 
in all Christian countries the most exempt from them. 

Still, the increasing control over these ravaging pestil- 
ences, the diminution of the mortality from them, the 
narrower sweep of their power in Christian countries, 
seem to be due more to the advance of science and civiliza- 
tion, than to the direct influence of Christianity. The 
increased skill in the treatment of disease, the more careful 
system of separation and exclusion of infected cases, the 
cleaner and more wholesome habits of modern life, the 


greater comfort enjoyed and the more wide-spread morality . 


and self-control of the poorer classes, are undoubtedly 
the special causes of the diminution of the fatal ravages 
of pestilence in modern, as compared with ancient, times, 
The last cause, however, is one indirectly due to Chris- 
tianity ; so that we can at least say that a pure religion is 
one of many causes of the comparative freedom of the 
modern Christian peoples from very deadly plagues ; and 
in like manner of the lower death-rate and longer 
average of life, peculiar to the experience of modern 
civilized races, 


CHAPTER XXXIV. 


INTEMPERANCE, 


AT first thought it will seem remarkable that the vice of 
intemperance under alcoholic stimulus has grown with 
civilization. The modern European and American leading 
peoples are certainly more under this terrible curse than 
were the oldest races known to us, the Egyptians, Hindoos, 
Persians, Assyrians, and Jews, or the Classic nations. The 
reasons are to be found partly in the fact that nearly all 
ancient civilization, and almost all these great peoples, 
found their central seats in mild or warm climates. In- 
temperance is a vice especially of northern races, and under 
cold climates. Then as arts and sciences have advanced, 
new stimulants have continually been discovered or in- 
vented ; and above all, the complex work of modern 
society demands a greater variety of nerve stimulus, and . 
the wear of the brain naturally seeks some real or supposed 
counter-agency in narcotics and alcoholic stimuli. The 
human family seems utterly unable to do without some 
of these stimulants, whether contained in tea, coffee, 
tobacco, alcohol, opium, or the manifold substitutes known 
to barbarous tribes. 

The leaders of modern civilization have been the northern 
races, and climate and transmitted habits have made them 
peculiarly sensitive to all these various forms of stimulant. 
Under those influences, and the demands for excessive 


433 F F 


434 GESTA CHRISTI. 


brain-work peculiar to modern conditions, or the exhaus- 
tion from muscular labour in confined air, the temptation 
to the over-use of these stimuli for all classes in modern 
times has been very powerful. The chill and dampness 
of northern climates, the inherited German and Keltic 
habits of conviviality, the want of comparatively innocent 
alcoholic stimulants, the over-work of brain in one class 
and the wear of muscles in crowded factories in another, 
acting with ignorance and inherited weakness of will, are 
the causes of the astounding intemperance among such 
peoples as the Swedes, Scotch, English, and Northern 
Americans, compared with the moderation of such nations 
as the Hindoos, Jews, and Romans. No language can 
exaggerate the evils of this fearful curse in modern times, 
especially on the labouring classes of the countries we have 
named. Only war surpasses it in the harvest of misery 
and poverty and crime it sows for the families of the poor. 
It desolates homes, breaks the hearts of women, turns out 
children worse than orphans on a cold world and thus 
makes them criminals, impoverishes the labourer, sows 
quarrels, violence, disturbance, and murders, fills prisons 
and almshouses and hospitals, and is the prolific cause of 
idiocy, insanity, disease, and moral and physical degenera- 
tion. It would be safe to say that in all northern countries, 
more than half of all the offences against person and 
property, are caused directly or indirectly by excessive use 
of alcoholic drinks. The amount spent by the labouring 
classes on them would alone prevent pauperism in all 
Christian countries. Thus Dr, Lees estimates that the 
English working classes spend every year the enormous 
sum of £350,000,000 for liquors alone. In 1860, the value 
of the distilled and fermented liquors in the United States 
was estimated at $740,000,000. -‘ In 1869-70, one person 
in every thirty is said by Dr. Beard, to have been arrested 


LHE CORSLSVOR ANIEMPERANCE, 435 


for drunkenness in Liverpool, and one in thirty-eight in 
Manchester. The number arrested every year in New 
York alone for offences caused by drunkenness, is some 
45,000. 

It was reported by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statis- 
tics of Labour in 1879 and 1880, after careful investigation, 
that eighty-four per cent. of all the crimes of the State 
which came before the courts, came directly or indirectly 
from the abuse of alcoholic stimulants. The Prison Com- 
missioners of the same State report that for the year 1880, 
ninety out of every hundred persons committed to the 
prisons, were intemperate; and that the cost of protecting 
the State from this army of criminals during the year was 
$1,971,198. 

It is estimated by a careful investigator (Judge Aldrich), 
that the American people spend annually some $600,000,000 
on intoxicating drinks. 

There needs no amplification of figures showing the 
fearful curses coming from Intemperance. 

Does Christianity work against it? Has it made pro- 
gress in that direction in the past, and is it likely to make 
more in the future? 

There can be little doubt to any familiar with social 
customs in civilized countries, that among all classes there 
has been a great change in the direction of Temperance 
during the past hundred years. 

This is largely due to the grand ascetic movement in 
favour of entire abstinence from alcoholic drinks, which, 
beginning in the United States under the influence of 
religion, has spread over Sweden, Great Britain, and 
America, and influenced thousands who have never taken 
the vow of abstinence. Movements in the United States 
against the extreme use of alcoholic drinks began very 
early. 


436 hs GESTA CAIs LE 


Thus in the Massachusetts Bay records, as far back as 
1646, we find a law, that, “forasmuch as drunkenness is a 
vice to be abhorred of all nations, especially of those who 
hold and profess the gospel of Christ Jesus, and seeing any 
strict law against the sin will not prevail, unless the cause 
be taken away,”! it is enacted that no wine under a 
quarter-cask shall be sold except by paid licence, and 
severe penalties are threatened to any one selling drink at 
unseasonable hours, or guilty of drunkenness. 

In 1651, a law is recorded in Easthampton, Long Island, 
checking the sale of ardent spirits. Many similar laws are 
found in American colonial history, influenced by the fer- 
vent Puritan spirit. In 1760 the various religious societies 
protested against the use of alcoholic beverages at funerals ; 
and the Friends early abolished the practice. In 1777 
the first Congress at Philadelphia, influenced by the re- 
ligious sentiment of the country, passed a resolution against 
distilling grain for liquors, and against excessive drinking. 
In 1788 an act was passed by the New York Legislature, 
regulating the sale of liquors, and controlling the taverns. 
In 1789 the first Temperance Society is said to have been 
formed at Litchfield, Connecticut, by the active members 
of the church. In 1797 the Quarterly Methodist Episcopal 
Conference of Virginia passed a series of resolves, pledg- 
ing their honour as Christians, not only to abandon entirely 
the use of ardent spirits themselves, except as medicine, 
but also to use their influence to induce others to do the 
same. The Pennsylvania Synod even recommended their 
pastors to preach against “the sin of intemperance.” The 
National American Temperance Society was formed in 
1826 in Boston. Still, with all these efforts, habits of in- 
temperance prevailed in this country to an alarming extent. 
Even as late as 1836, a distinguished divine of Andover is. 

1 Quoted by F. W. Bird. Papers of Amer. Soc. Ass. p. 98, 1881. 


TEMPERANCE IN AMERICA. 437 


reported to have stated publicly that he knew over forty 
ministers who were either drunkards, or addicted to habits 
of hard drinking. The “Temperance” movement, however, 
grew into the “Total Abstinence” movement about 1833; 
the churches of the country everywhere struggled against 
the ruinous vice, and the discussion of the subject, especially 
by pastors and lecturers, roused the conscience of the entire 
nation. Great numbers of drunkards were reclaimed, and, 
more important still, the young were started with a horror 
of this excess, and the convivial habits of society entirely 
changed. Whereas formerly few families of the fortunate 
classes were to be found without an intemperate member, 
in latter years it is an exception to hear of such instances. 
“The ascetic movement has reached all classes. In no 
country of the world are there so many families of com- 
fortable circumstances who never have wine or liquors on 
their tables, or so many hard-working operatives who never 
touch these stimulants. What is called the Total Absti- 
nence movement, which is a kind of ascetic off-shoot of 
Christianity, has scattered untold blessings in this country, 
and should ever be remembered with profound gratitude. 
Like most ascetic efforts, it is not destined to be per-_ 
manent ; but it was needed and will be needed. There 
are signs already of its yielding, especially under foreign 
influence in the United States, to a Temperance based on 
rational self-control; and the aid to this will be all the 
civilizing influences of society. For the man under the 
fatal spell of this appetite, the only possibility of regaining 
self-control is by entire abstinence; and the best of all 
reformatory influences is the power of Christianity. The 
shock which the dread of retribution threatened by this 
belief gives, will awaken from vice, and then the trans- 
forming power of Love, spoken of by Plato, for a “divine 
Person” will fill the soul with such an enthusiasm, as to 


438 GESTA “CHRISTI: 


raisc it above the power of these base appetites, and per- 
manently reform the nature. 

The writer in these statements does not speak of 
theories, but of facts, which he has often seen exemplified 
in most striking life-histories.! The best of all safeguards 
against intemperance is the Christian Faith. 

The power of Religion in checking this vice is seen now 
in tens of thousands of families throughout the land, and 
in the higher standard of temperance spread abroad among 
the whole people. | 

Many of the States have adopted prohibitory laws, pre- 
venting all public sale of liquors, and others, strict license 
laws. 

It is true that with all this there is a fearful amount of 
intemperance in the United States, especially in the large 
cities among the foreign poor and their descendants. But 
here Christian philanthropy is discovering very ingenious 
means of diminishing its growth. A great deal of intem- 
perance arises from idleness, from want of education, from 
lack of virtuous amusement and proper sociability, from 
contact with bad example, and from want of hope and the 
consciousness of social degradation. The religious bodies 
in the cities have sought to meet these wants by opening 
coffee and club rooms for working people; by providing 
virtuous amusements, and above all by opening “industrial 
schools” for the children of the poor. It is found by long 
practical experience that the daughters of habitual drunk- 
ards being brought under the daily influences of order, 
industry and purity in these schools, having better food, 
coming in contact with superior and refined women, and 
hearing lessons of morality daily, hardly ever grow up in 
the way of their parents, but become naturally sober and 
decent women.’ 

1See The Dangerous Classes of New York. 8 Lbid. 


REFORMS IN SOCIAL HABITS. 439 


It may fairly be said that a considerable diminution in 
intemperate habits has been caused in the United States 
by the influence, direct and indirect, of the religious prin- 
ciple. Social habits are much improved, and great numbers 
of the poor have been rescued from the control of this vice, 
It needs only the same influences, continued in manifold 
forms, to eradicate the vice from thousands of families. 
We have beheld the beginnings of this renovating power 
in American social life, and we can logically argue to its 
future wide influence as time goes on. In Europe, also, 
there has been, in the countries most given to intoxication 
and extreme habits of drinking, a very marked improvement 
in the past few years. The reform in favour of abstinence 
in Sweden has been especially impelled by religious con- 
siderations and by the religious teachers. It has already 
accomplished untold good in that country. ! 

The various Temperance and Total Abstinence move-. 
ments in England and Scotland have received their great 
impulse from a like source. They have not only affected 
great numbers of the common people, but their reflex 
power has worked upon the middle and wealthiest classes, 
and produced or aided a general reform in the convivial 
habits of society. In the higher English society there ts 
not nearly the amount of drunkenness which prevailed a 
century since. 

The great diminution in the consumption of spirits by 
the British working classes for the past few years, as 
shown by the revenue returns, is another evidence of in- 
creasing sobriety. 

We do not doubt the mingling of many other influences 
in bringing about a greater sobriety through all classes in 
the British Islands. In some respects the progress of the 
arts and sciences works against a low habit like this ; 

1 See Norse Folk, by the Author. 


440 GESTAVCHRISTI. 


more nourishing food, purer water, higher amusements, and 
a better social tone, all tend to diminish its power. But 
the direct and indirect influence of religion is the most 
powerful obstacle to the spread of such a vice, and to this 
is largely due the improvement sometimes among persons 
who themselves may be indifferent to the Christian Faith, 

It is not claimed of course that the Christian Religion 
has done all that lay in it towards removing intemperance 
from the world. It has only begun its workings. .Men 
have not received its teachings as they will yet receive 
them. But the essential influence of this Faith is to raise 
the man above a low appetite, to strengthen his self- 
control, and reform his whole nature. Where Christianity 
had full power, there could be no drunkenness. From the 
results accomplished in a few centuries, all can judge what 
will be the effects after long periods of time. 


CHAPTER XXXV. 
PERSECUTION. 


THE most disgraceful feature in the history of the 
Christian Church is its persecution of opposing or dif- 
fering beliefs. There is nothing whatever in the words of 
Christ or the teachings of the Apostles to countenance 
this practice. On the contrary, it is opposed to the very 
essence of the Christian system; and John, in defining 
God as Love, would for ever put an end to such travesties 
of faith in Him as would lead men to hate and persecute. 
The evil tendency arose, however, very early from the idea, 
born of ignorance and bigotry, that a change of opinion 
produced by force would be for the advantage of the new 
Faith, and for the good of the believer thus compelled, 
and that men were guilty who held incorrect beliefs. 
These ideas were early engrafted in Roman law,—an evil 
feature which was derived from the influence of the Church. 
Justinian’s legislation against Arians and other heretics 
bears a stamp of: ecclesiastical bigotry scarce known to 
Roman legislation. The Emperor Theodosius reached 
the acme of bigotry when he threatened death as the 
legal punishment of heretics, with the words that “no 
place must be left them where they could do injury even 
to the elements themselves”; 1! and where he declares that 
with apostates even penitence does not obliterate their 


‘Quoniam his nihil relinquendum loci est, in quo ipsis etiam ele- 
mentis flat injuria (Cod, iv. Leg. 3, etc.). 
441 


442 GESTA CHRISTI 


crime.! But nothing in all history has been so stupid 
and useless and cruel as the persecution from the earliest 
ages, by nominal Christians, of a most useful class of 
persons, united to them by many ties—the Jews. 

The legislation against this unfortunate race began as 
far back as the time of Justinian. They were persecuted 
and pillaged incessantly ; they were forced to pay immense 
sums to remain under the protection of the common law, 
and many were farmed out to particular men for purposes 
of extortion. The code of the Visigoths early showed the 
bigoted influences of ecclesiasticism, and under it the Jews 
were forbidden to testify in courts of justice, and were 
spoken of as “beasts” in law, and their property as 
belonging to the noblemen on whose lands they chanced 
to be. In Germany they were long considered the serfs 
of the Emperor; in England they were frequently held in 
common servitude. In France the whole body at times 
was banished, and many were put to death with tortures. 
It was even decreed that communication with Jewish 
women should be punished as with beasts, and both parties 
burned alive. | 

The persecutions of the Moors by the Christians of 
Spain; of heretics and Protestants under the Inquisi- 
tion; of Protestants by Catholics, and Catholics by 
Protestants; of the Puritans by the Church of England, 
and of Baptists and Quakers by Puritans, are all too well 
known to need relating. The history of the Christian 
Church has been a history of opposition to her Master 
in the matter of hate and persecution of opposing beliefs. 
The vestures of the historical Church are stained deep 
with the blood of the innocent, shed for ideas which they 
believed true. Individuals in every age, inspired with the 
spirit of the Teacher of Love, have urged the hatefulness 


1 Nec flagitium eorum obliterabitur poenitentia. 


PROTESTS AGAINST PERSECUTION. 443 


of persecution, the tolerance of differing opinions, and the 
difference between character and mere intellectual belief. 
Though uttering only the common-places of Christian 
teaching, they were derided or not listened to, and the 
religious world went on violating the first principles of the 
Gospel. 

In each century more and more individuals became 
imbued with Christian truths, and believed and urged 
that man was responsible to God alone for his religious 
opinions; that character rather than belief was the test, 
and that any injury done to a human being for his religious 
ideas or practices (so long as they did not conflict with 
common morals), was a violation of the principles of 
Christ’s doctrine, and a wrong and injustice. These pro- 
tests arose, too, from those nominally outside of Chris- 
tianity who had felt its influence though denying the 
name, and thus the current of opinion moved gradually 
against the practice of religious persecution. Thus the 
celebrated John Robinson, father of Puritanism in New 
England, says, 


“It is no property of religion to compel to religion what ought to be 
taken up freely; that no man is forced by Christians against his will, 
seeing that he that wants faith and devotion is unserviceable to God, 
and that God not being contentious, would not be worshipped of the 
unwilling . . . and lastly, considering that neither God is pleased 
with unwilling worshippers, nor Christian societies bettered, nor the 
persons themselves.” ? 


Grotius? is equally in advance of his times: 


‘But they that persecute others for no other cause but because 
they either teach or profess the Christian religion, are most unreason- 
able. For certainly our Christian doctrine considered in its sincerity 


' Works, vol. 1. p. 40. 
2 Right of War and Peace, book il.c. 20. (Evart’s translation, 
1782). 


444 CLS LA SOL Riad 


without any commixture, contains nothing prejudicial to humane 
society, nay that doth not rather advance it; it shall speak for itself 
and its enemies shall confess no less.” 


In the United States, where both practice and legislation 
are much under the influence of Christian motives, all 
persecution for religious opinion, or withdrawing of civil 
rights on account of belief, or interference in any way 
with religious worship or practices (where not conflicting 
with common morals), has passed entirely out, not only of 
use, but even from the thought of men. 

Persecution is passing away also in Europe, though sur- 
viving here and there in disabilities of Jews (as in regard 
to the marriage of Christians and Jews in Hungary), or 
violence against Jews (as in Russia), or legislation against 
Catholics (as in Germany), or proceedings against heretics 
or schismatics. 

The day is not far distant in which the charity of Christ 
will be embodied in all the legislation, practice, and 
opinion of the civilized nations, and all men shall be 
free to think, worship, and practice (within reasonable 
restraints) as to them may seem good. Then at length 
will the Church of Christ be like its Head. | 


CHAPTER XXXVI. 
HUMANE PROGRESS AMONG NON-CHRISTIAN PEOPLES.1 


It is a grand and consoling thought, harmonious with 
reason and the utterances of inspired men, that there is 
in human history a “continuity” of Divine revelations. 
That is, that the Spirit of God has not merely manifested 
itself to one race in. a remote corner of the world during 
a few years, but that He has been struggling with human 
souls during all ages and among all races. Certain indi- 
viduals have especially received these inspirations, and 
have so grasped certain moral and spiritual truths, or have 
led such pure and unselfish lives, as to profoundly affect 
the humane and moral progress of whole races of men. 
Indeed the continuance and relative advance of great 
nations have often depended on the degree to which they 
followed the instructions and truths taught by their great 
religious leaders. Under this aspect, GOD is an ever- 
acting force in human history, and men and women in the 
most widely scattered countries and among races given up 
to superstition or degrading practices, have opened their 
souls to this Divine light. The light which they in turn 
have given to the world, has not been indeed like the pure 
radiance shining forth from the “Son of Man” in Judza, 


1 We object strongly to the invidious implication of the term 
“Heathen” peoples, as though such races were all wild tribes, given 
up to idolatrous and barbarous practices. Some of the heathen 
peoples have grasped a great deal of Divine truth. 

445 


446 Gis 1 CLT el 


but it has contained rays of the heavenly light, and, though 
obscured by mists of superstition and the clouds of human 
ignorance, it has yet guided many a weary soul in the 
dark ways of the world. _ 

Paul evidently had these truths in mind, when he de- 
clares that “the invisible things of Him from the creation 
of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the 
things that are made, even His everlasting power and 
Divinity” (Rom. i. 20); and again, “For when Gentiles 
which have no law, do by nature the things. of the law, 
these, having no law, are a law unto themselves, in that 
they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their 
conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts 
one with another accusing or else excusing them” (Rom. 
Xil.-14, 15); or, when on Mars’ Hill, he said to the ap- 
parently superstitious worshippers of an ‘ unknown God,” 
“Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you” 
(Acts xvii. I-23). Peter too expressed a like thought in 
the words “Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter _ 
of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him and 
worketh righteousness -is acceptable to Him” (Acts x. 
34553 5): 

In comparing humane progress under peoples nominally 
Christian and those non-Christian, it is but just to take 
among the latter, nations who have reached a high state of 
organization and the most complete civilization which we 
find outside of Christianity. In this view we shall choose 
the //cndoos, the Chinese, and the Arabs. Our comparison, 
under the limits of this work, must of necessity be very 
brief, and only touch on points familiar to students. 

The Hindoos are admitted by historians to have attained 
to a very high intellectual and moral advancement. The 
ancient books of their faith contain scattered through 
them moral and spiritual truths which in power and depth, 


GREAT TRUTHS AMONG THE HINDOOS. 447 


equal many of the doctrines of Christianity. Their sages 
and poets frequently saw the truths of the Unity and 
Spirituality of God, of a superintending Providence, of 
man’s sin and his want of forgiveness, of the need of an 
“Angel Messiah” or Incarnation of Divinity, of immor- 
tality, of judgment to come, of human brotherhood and 
equality before God, and all the duties to God and man 
that spring from these doctrines. 

But with all these truths, were included soon so many 
falsehoods, so many superstitions, vagaries, bloody, cruel 
and licentious ideas and practices, and the want of any 
one simple and pure life and doctrine like those of JESUS, 
that the people very early fell into debasing practices 
which checked progress. Mr. Mill, in his History of India, 
justly says, 

“If those qualities which render a man amiable, respectable and 
useful as a human being; if wisdom, beneficence and self-command 
are celebrated as the chief recommendations to the favour of the 
Almighty; if the production of happiness is steadily and constantly 
represented as the most acceptable worship to the Creator, no other 
proof is requisite that they who framed and they who understood this 
religion, have arrived at high and refined notions of an All-Perfect 
Being” (vol. i. p. 263). 

The corruptions of the early Brahmanic faith show that 
such an idea of Deity had long passed away among the 
masses in India. The deification of licentiousness and 
cruelty in the Hindoo faith has degraded the people, and 
no doubt tended to produce the singular indifference to 
human suffering, noticed by travellers,! and the licentious- 

1 We have again and again witnessed along the great pilgrim-routes 
of India, harrowing illustrations of this sad truth ; we have seen poor 
creatures smitten with disease, lying on the road-side, passed by 
hundreds of their co-religionists with no more concern than if they 
were dying dogs; we have seen the poor parched sufferers with folded 


hands and pleading voice crave a drop of water to moisten their lips, 
but all in vain.” (Vaughan's Zredent, Crescent and Cross, p. 31.) 


448 GESTA CHRIST? 


ness of many classes. The two great causes, however, of 
the want of progress in India, as compared with Europe, 
are the existence of caste and the position of woman. 

Caste is not improbably a result of conquest, but it has 
been strengthened instead of weakened by the religion of 
the Hindoos. The laws of Manu (supposed to date back 
at least to the fifth century before Christ) speak of caste 
(book i. 8) as a law of nature and of Divine appointment, 
as much as the creation of different animals. 


“Since the Brahman sprang from the most excellent part, since he 
has the priority arising from primogeniture, and since he possesses 
the Veda, he is by right lord of this whole creation” (i. 93). 


Even the Rig-veda, as quoted by Williams (“Indian 
Wisdom”) makes the Brahman to issue from the mouth 
of Vishnu, the kingly soldier from his arms, the hus- 
bandman from his thighs, and the servile Sudra to come 
from his feet. It is obvious that a people whose religion 
stamps such social divisions on their organization, cannot 
advance under modern conditions. All observers agree 
that caste in India makes anything like modern European 
progress impossible. The first effort of Christianity on 
individual Hindoos is of course to abolish caste ideas 
and prejudices. Such immovable divisions of class are 
opposed to the foundation principles of Christ’s doctrine. 

But even more than caste, has the position of woman 
in India retarded her progress. The oldest religious 
documents and many of the older laws appear to have 
recognised a higher influence and position for woman than 
do the modern. Still, even the laws of Manu assign her a 
very inferior rank. The wife is permitted to be sold or 
beaten; she is spoken of as having no will of her own and 
as unfit for independence. A husband must constantly 


1 Williams’ /rdian Wisdom, p. 529. 


POSITION OF WOMAN IN INDIA. 449 


be revered as a god by a virtuous wife. No sacrifice is 
allowed to women apart from their husbands; no religious 
rites, no fasting.1 Even the Bhajavad - Gita represents 
woman as entering heaven along with the lowest caste 
Mill ® quotes from an ancient Hindoo writing—the Hito- 
padesa, or “ Book of Friendly Advice,”— 


“In infancy, the father should guard her; in youth, her husband; 
and in old age, her children; for at no time is a woman fit to be 
trusted with liberty.” “Infidelity, violence, deceit, envy, extrava- 
gance, a total want of good qualities, with impurity, are the innate 
faults of women.” 


According to this author, she could not under the old 
code give evidence; she could not share in the paternal 
property ; she was by system deprived of education; as 
a wife she was held unworthy to eat with her husband. 
The latter could dismiss her on the smallest pretexts, but 
no violence or desertion or sale could absolve woman from 
obligation to her lord. “Day and night,” say the laws 
of Manu, “must woman be held by her protector in a 
state of dependence.”* “ By a girl or a young woman, 
or by a woman advanced in years, nothing must be done 
even in her own dwelling according to her own mere 
pleasure.”® Nor is the modern position of woman in India 
superior to that assigned to her in ancient law and custom. 


“No Hindoo woman,” says Williams, “has in theory any inde- 
pendence. It is not merely that she is not her own mistress; she is 
not her own property, and never under any circumstances can be. 
She belongs to her father first, who gives her away to her husband, to 
whom she belongs for ever. She is not considered capable of so high 
a form of religion as man, and she does not mix freely in society.” @ 


a 


1 Manu, v. 155. 2 Williams, p. 145. 
Br Liste Of, LAR D295; SME. 1207, 
§ Manu, quoted by Mill. Salar: 


7 {Indian Wisdom, p. 435. 
GG 


450 - GESTA’ CHRISTI. 


“Home! is so shut in by the close shutters of caste that healthy 
ventilation is impossible. The fresh air of heaven and the light of 
God’s day have no free entrance. Weakly children are brought up 
by ignorant, superstitious, narrow-minded mothers in a vitiated atmo- 
sphere. Hence, in my opinion, the present deteriorated character and 
condition of a large majority of the people of India.” 


A Hindoo convert to Christianity thus describes his 
feelings in regard to marriage: 


“Escaping the maladies of superstition and standing under the 
light of true religion with feelings of love and refinement in my heart, 
I shudder at and clearly see the defects in the system we have con- 
sidered. The very thought of marrying a person whose joys and 
sorrows I am to participate in, who is to become one with me, without 
{knowing her character and seeing her face at all, makes me shudder. 
.. . In Bengal, with many, the affection between husband and 
wife is rather compulsory than heart-felt. True love does rarely grace 
the connubial life of the Hindoo. The children do not know what 
innocent social comforts are. Vice with its thousand branches twines 
round their lives. Faithlessness to the married relation, discord be- 
tween and separation of two who are strictly required to be one, are 
the defective features of Hindoo families in general.” ? 


We have purposely refrained from quoting to any large 
extent from the views of missionaries, who may be sup- 
posed on this subject to be prejudiced. But even Sir 
Henry Maine, who regards these matters from a peculiarly 
philosophical standpoint, attributes in a passage we have 
already quoted (p. 35), the lack of progress of this great 
branch of the Aryan family, as compared with the Euro- 
pean, to the different position they gave to woman. 
Whence the European sentiment and practice are mainly 
derived, we have already seen. 

The cruel practices once habitual in India, and now not 


1 Indian Wisdom, p. 137. 
2 Gangooly’s Life and Religion of the Hindoos, p. 53+ 


BUDDHA :AN INSPIRED TEACHER, 451 


wholly? abolished by the influence of a Christian people, 
are painful evidences of the want of humane progress. 
Self-immolation, human sacrifices, the burning of widows, 
the exposure of the sick and feeble, and like practices 
could not possibly exist where Christianity had the 
slightest power. ) 


Buddhism,—One faith has existed in India as a reform 
of Brahmanism, and has extended to China, Japan, and 
other countries, which in the life of its founder and the 
truths he taught, showed a peculiar Divine inspiration that 
brought it in some respects very near to Christianity. 
Undoubtedly in the original form of this religion are seen 
the workings of the Divine Spirit on a most pure and 
exalted human soul. Indeed the truths taught by Gautama- 
Buddha seem to be fore-gleams of those taught by Christ.? 
Never has compassion been more Divinely illustrated in a 
human life ; nowhere are self-sacrifice, human brotherhood, 
universal benevolence and sympathy, and purity of heart 
and life more directly taught than in the words transmitted 
of Sakya Muni. The Buddhist legends might well teach 
that all nature budded into spring and a thrill of joy reached 
every animated being, that the blind saw and the dumb 
spake, that prisoners were set free and the flames of hell 
extinguished, and a mighty sound of music arose from 
heaven and earth,? when a human soul so pure and holy 
and thus filled with an almost infinite compassion, began 
its life in the body. 


1 Ball speaks of sacrifices of children practised in India as late as 
1861, and as not wholly broken up in 1879. (fFungle Life, etc., p. 608.) 

2 See Alabaster’s Wheel of the Law, and numberless Lives of 
Buddha. Also Zhe Angel Messtah, by E. von Bunsen, 1880; and 
Beal’s Romant. Hist. of Saékya Budda, from the Chinese Sanscrit, 
1875 ; and Catena of Luddh. Script., from the Chinese, 1871, 

% Alabaster’s Wheel, ete 


452 GESTA CHRISTI. 


Nor has this life been a failure. The humanity, courtesy, 
mercy and brotherhood exhibited by countless multitudes 
of Asiatics, are without doubt largely the fruit of these 
teachings.! | | 

But the soul of the saintly Hindoo seemed not sufficiently 
open to the Divine influences, or his mind was too much 
under the power of Indian mythology, so that the final aim 
and consummation of his belief lacked the simplicity and 
reality of Christianity. He could not offer a great hope 
to mankind, but only a cessation of the eternal changes 
of metempsychosis, and the quietude of Nirvana, where 
no desire or pain or pleasure or sin should ever invade 
the eternal repose.. It has to some of his followers been 
the repose of annihilation; to others the peace of blessed 
absorption into Deity and of loss of personality; to 
others the eternal rest of the heavy-laden in the bosom 
of God. The vagueness of the hope, the lack of sublime 
simplicity in the teachings, the want of an overpowering 
faith in the ‘‘ Heavenly Father,’ and a certain absence of 
consciousness of perfect union with the Infinite Spirit, 
will perhaps account for the failure of Buddhism in pro- 
moting the progress of Asia as compared with Christianity 
in Europe. The Divine Spirit was moving in the self- 
sacrificing Indian prince and in many of his intuitions 
and the truths taught by him; but not as in Christ. His 
truth early gathered around it gross superstitions; it 
degenerated into senseless idolatry; it developed useless 
asceticism and ecclesiasticism ; it was accompanied with 
the most mechanical routine service, instead of a free moral 
and spiritual life. Buddhism has not seemed capable of 
urging on a steady moral and humane progress as Chris- 


1 See Miss Bird’s description of the remarkable kindness and good 
nature of the Japanese, the effects of a faith they had given up,— 
Buddhism, 


THE FAILURE OF BUDDHISM. 453 


tianity has done. It was evidently not fit for all stages 
of human growth. Yet the student of moral develop- 
ment must ever be grateful, that so high a type of 
human Faith has sustained such countless millions of the 
human race during so many centuries. Back of all its 
idolatry, superstition and wild fancies, many a_ simple 
believer must have seen a noble form, bearing the burdens 
of mankind, most “like unto the Son of man,” and through 
him, he has been led to worship, “ignorantly ” it may be, 
the Infinite Father, and to work “righteousness,” so far as 
human weakness permitted, and “hath been accepted with 
Him”! through His infinite mercy. 

Some forms, too, of practical charity have sprung up 
under it—such as shelters for travellers, hospitals for the 
sick, foundling asylums, and similar charities. It is prob- 
able that the first hospitals in the world’s history for 
diseased men and animals were founded by the Indian 
Buddhists. But these have not been continued to any 
great extent. 

Buddhism entered China when two systems held sway; 
one of a philosophic transcendental Rationalism, Taoism,? 
and the other of a most exalted philanthropy, which neither 
denied nor affirmed supernatural facts, Confucianism. 

In China, Buddhism besides exerting its higher influence, 
supplied in its corrupt form a gross superstition as a satis- 
faction to the religious wants of man’s nature. The truths 
of Confucius, though in many respects elevated and filled 
with the sense of human brotherhood, not being connected 
with pure Religion, failed to stimulate to an ever-moving 
progress. They cultivated good will, and filial pity, and. 
public duty, and outward propriety; but they did not offer 
inducements so powerful, or such personal affection for a 
supernatural Teacher, or the sense of God and Immortality, 


1 Acts x. 34, 35. 2 See Fohuson’s Oriental Religions—China. 


454 GESTA CHRISTI 


sufficient to overcome human selfishness. They gave a 
great and ingenious race enough to satisfy present needs, 
and with the superstition of Buddhism, to leave it in one 
fixed condition. We find in consequence in China, abuses 
which belonged to Europe before Christianity had attained 
to much influence. Infanticide, despite the denials of certain 
authorities, is undoubtedly fearfully prevalent in certain 
districts ; children are sold as slaves ;! even a wife is some- 
times sold ; slavery is common and torture is still in use. 
Confucius taught blood-revenge : 


*“Recompense injury with justice,” he said, “and kindness wjth 
kindness.”*? “ He who recompenses injury with kindness is a man 
who is careful of his person.” “ With the slayer of his father, a man 
may not live under the same heaven; against the slayer of his brother, 
a man must never have to go home to fetch a weapon; with the slayer 
of his friend, a man may not live in the same state.” 


From such teachings may have arisen the long con- 
tinuance of “feuds ” in China. 

The alleged insincerity of the Chinese is thought to be 
due to certain instructions of this great teacher, where he 
permits truth to be waived. # 

There is no such teaching of humanity by Confucius as 
to affect the relations of China with other countries ; there 
is no especial respect for foreigners, and other races are 
looked at as barbarians. The peculiar isolation of China, 
as regards other countries, is no doubt partly due to this 
defect in this great teacher’s instructions. Woman is 
undoubtedly in an inferior position in China. 


1 A vigorous effort has been made by the British during the year 1832 
to break up this atrocious traffic by parents in their own children in 
Hong Kong. (See Loudon Spectator, April 26, 1882). 

2" Ana, xxv. 26. 

3 Legge’s Life of Confucius, p. 114. 

CAG EXVULS2OR View 3, 


FAILURE OF CONFUCIANISM. 455 


“Man is the representative of heaven,” says this philosopher, “ and 
is the supreme over all things. Woman yields obedience to the 
instruction of man and helps to carry out his principles. On this 
account, she can determine nothing of herself, and is subject to the 
rule of the three obediences: when young she must obey her father 
and elder brother; when married, her husband; when her husband 
is old, she must obey her son.” } 

The position of woman in China is evidently one of the 
causes of the sluggish condition of. that country during so 
many centuries. Woman has apparently little important 
part there, either socially, politically or morally ; though 
she has figured somewhat in Chinese literature. 

And yet for the assistance of its moral progress, there 
has been no deification of vice in the Chinese religion, nor 
human sacrifice, and a most pure and elevated literature. 

It is to be admitted, however, when all things are said, 
that we know but little about the permanent and profound 
influences affecting the Chinese people. It would seem that 
this benevolent and monotonous type of society, without 
enthusiasm and with many secret vices, with no element in 
it of great and heroic progress and suited to a certain 
condition of immovability for countless centuries, may be 
a type of the future of the civilized world, should a phil- 
anthropic Rationalism take the place of the Christian 
Religion. 

Confucius might well be the saint of modern Agnosti- 
cism. 

It may be justly urged, however, that the followers of 
both Gautama-Buddha and of Confucius have never fully 
lived up to the principles and teachings of their masters. 
But on the other hand it may be fairly replied, that there 
was not in themselves and their doctrines sufficient of the 
life-giving impulse, or of Divine power, to overcome the 
selfishness and indifference of men; so that as ages go by 


1 Legge’s Translation, p. 103. 


456 . GCHSTANGI Ris, 


and civilization advances, those religious or moral beliefs 
no longer greatly influence their believers and are poorly 
adapted to the new conditions of the world. A lamentable 
instance of the failure of Buddhism?! seems to be afforded 
by the present condition of Japan. ‘Travellers picture the 
Japanese as people without religion and without hope. A 
current and favourite proverb is, that “the worst thing you 
can wish a man is to live again.” As the old faith has died 
out there is nothing left but its unconscious effects and the 
habits taught by it, to stem the tide of selfishness; and 
the people seem given up, say very candid observers, to 
“licentiousness and untruthfulness,” while a deep shade ot 
melancholy settles over all. The great doctrine of Sakya 
Muni that the “End of Righteousness is Rest,” has de- 
generated into the dogma that the “End of Righteousness 
is Nothingness,” and a night of unbelief and hopelessness 
has fallen over a whole race. 

Lhe Arabs.—The Arabs, whom we have chosen also for 
comparison with European peoples, were in a high con- 
dition of civilization when Europe was in barbarism. The 
Spanish Arabs of the tenth and eleventh centuries, drawing 
their inspiration perhaps from an older civilization, were 
as much superior intellectually to the French, Germans, 
and English of that age, as are these peoples now to 
Afghans or Turks. In the arts and sciences and many 
‘of the best fruits of civilization, in refinement and intellect, 
the Mohammedans of the Middle Ages, both of Europe 
and “Asia, far exceeded the Christian nations. They fol- 
lowed, too, a faith which contained one great Divine truth, 
the existence of one infinite and spiritual Creator, to whom 
all men were responsible. They abhorred idol worship, 
and no doubt often came in contact with nominal Chris- 
tians, who were farther removed than themselves from — 


" See Miss Bird's interesting journey in Japan. 


INFLUENCE OF MOHAMMEDANISM. 457 


the spiritual worship taught in the Bible. But the 
sensuality encouraged by their faith; the cruelty and 
bigotry taught by. it; the fatalism implied in it; the per- 
mission given in it to polygamy, divorce and slavery, 
proved that it was not the religion of the future, not the 
religion of humanity, and must come to an end. _ In fact, 
the many false and evil elements in Mohammedanism 
have made it one of the curses of mankind. It has 
spread abroad the spirit of cruelty and lust, and under 
it are found. the unnatural vices, } and the oppression of 
subject races, and the degradation of women, which ‘be- 
longed to Europe before the era of Christianity. Its 
teachings of the doctrine of fatalism are an insurmount- 
able obstacle to all advance, whether in civilization or 
morals. Man becomes the mere sport and implement of an 
irresistible destiny. It has in it no element of permanent 
social and moral-progress. The science and intellect of 
some of the races which embraced it could not save it. 
It so lacks the Christian respect for the individual, and 
the Christian benevolence, that it never suits itself to 
liberal government or to advanced civilization. The 
splendour of Spanish and Asiatic Arab art and archi- 
tecture is only seen in ruins; the science which once led 
the world in investigation only remains in words which 
have become histories, and in discoveries which have pre- 
ceded modern research! while the barbaric tribes whom 


1 See Mussulmans of India, W.W. Hunter; and many travels 
in Turkey. It is difficult even to speak on this subject to modern eazs, 
but the testimony of intelligent travellers and observers, long resident 
in Turkey, show that the Turkish race is eaten up with unnatural 
vices, and that the Mohammedan faith does not check them. See 
also Monier Williams, Wineteenth Century, July, 1882. 

Williams writes the name Muhammad, as directly derived from the 
passive participle of the verb Aamada, “to praise,” “the praised one,” 
“the glorious.” 


458 GESTA CHRIST. 


the followers of Mohammed then so despised, and who 
were in such low intellectual and moral condition during 
the Arabic period of glory, now lead the world’s progress. 

The difference has not been evidently in vigour of race, 
or in intellect, or acquired science and learning, or in 
language. The Turkish conquest is, of course, one reason 
of the change; but the great cause has lain in those 
peculiar .and subtle influences which Christianity has 
eradually instilled into European races.! 

On the other hand, Mohammedanism could not rise 
above its source. It illustrated or exaggerated every- 
where the vices of its leader. It left behind it, whether 
in Spain, Sicily, Egypt, or Bagdad, anarchy, corruption, 
and horrible social evils. Still it is but just to note that 
certain Mohammedans, who have probably come under 
the influence of the purer Persian faith and of Buddhism, 
as well as of the “Soofi” mysticism, have attained to a 
religion as elevated and earnest, though not so humane 
and practical, as Christianity itself. The Divine Spirit 
apparently inspired such a preacher as Ghazzali2 

With Mohammedan races, slavery largely prevails; 
polygamy is permitted; divorce is comparatively free. 
In Arabia and on the African coast, blood revenge and 
feud still exist. In Turkey, unnatural vice is common ; 
woman is in a most degraded position; divorces are 
almost daily ;* and cruelty of the most horrible descrip- 


1 Les peuples d’Orient sont tellement imbues de Vidée de la force, 
ils sont tellement fagonnés depuis des siécles 4 la soumission, qu’ils 
ne comprennent pas au juste la puissance du droit.— Des causes de la 
epadence, On ACINSAHaCeet a, Pogs at 10%, 

* He appeared in the eleventh century. See the beautiful trans- 
lation of his Alchemy of Happiness, by H. A. Homes, 1873. 

* Rev. Dr. Washburne, President of Robert’s College, Constanti- 
nople, assures me that he has known Turks to divorce their wives 
day after day. It isa very general practice. 


EFFECTS OF MOHAMMEDANISM. 459 


tion towards prisoners or those conquered is well known. 
In Arabia, a favourite proverb is “The threshold weeps 
four days when a girl is born! Another Arabic proverb 
teaches that “to send women beforehand to the other 
world is a benefit,” and that “the best son-in-law is the 
crave.” Wife-beating seems taught in the Koran,’ as it 
is the custom in Mohammedan countries, and wife murder 
is not uncommon in Syria.® The modern testimony as 
to the effect of Mohammedanism on the Arabs of Syria 
is overwhelming ; we have space for but few quotations. 
Says a convert, 


“ How few of the hundreds of thousands of women in Syria know 
how to read! How few are the schools ever established for teaching 
women. Any one who denies the degradation and ignorance of 
Syrian women, would deny the existence of the noonday sun.’ Do 
not men shun even allusion to women, and if obliged to speak of 
them, do they not accompany the remark with ’wellak Allah, as if 
they were speaking of a brute beast or filthy object? Are they not 
treated among us very much as among barbarians?” 4 


An article from Le Liban, an official journal of Daud 
Pasha, Governor of Mount Lebanon, printed in 1867,° says, 


“So in former times, the man was the absolute tyrant of the 
family. The wife was the slave, never to be seen by others. And if 
‘in conversation it became necessary to mention her name, it would be 
by saying this was done by my wife, ’ajellak Alah!° But now there 
is a change, and woman is no longer regarded as worthy of contempt 
and abuse; and the progress being made in the emancipation and 


——— —— 


1 Jessup’s Women of the Arabs. 

2 Sura iv: “But chide thou those for whose refractoriness ye have 
cause to fear . . . and scourge them.” 

BF essup. ; 

4 Essay of Mr. Bistany, read before the Beirut Literary Society, 
1849, quoted by Mr. Jessup, p. 159. 

5 Fessup, p. 178. | 

6 The lrish phrase is parallel, “ Saving your Reverence !” 


460 GHESTAY CHRIST, 


elevation of woman is one of the noblest and best proofs of the reas 
progress of Lebanon in the paths of morality and civilization.” 


“In Algiers,” Seguin says, “the Mohammedan invariably 
buys his wife; he pays a price for her to her family.” } 


“When an Arab woman marries, she is sure only that she will be a 
slave ; but who can tell how many domestic tortures she will have to 
endure?” 


The conception of God in the Koran is not of a father, 
but of an inscrutable despot. “Verily,” says this book, 
“there is none in the heavens and on earth but shall 
approach the God of mercy as a slave,” and the duty is 
laid upon the faithful of being the agents of God’s wrath 
on those who believe not.2 The two great Christian ideas 
at the base of modern progress—the fatherhood of God 
and brotherhood of man—are wanting in Islam. The 
Christian ideas at the basis of modern international law 
are unknown to Mohammedanism. War is the ordinance 
of God, and public faith need not be kept with infidels or 
aliens ° 


1 Walks in Algiers, p. 517. 
See Osborne’s /slam tn Arabia, p. 27. 

Hedaya’ 1x.” Mills* Korany‘p. 330, 0“ Oh, Prophet! stir up the 
faithful to war; if twenty of you persevere with constancy, they 
shall conquer two hundred ; and if there be one hundred of you, they 
shall overcome two thousand by the permission of God, for God is 
with those who persevere. It hath not been granted to any prophet 
that he should possess captives, until he had made a great slaughter 
of the infidels on the earth” (Sale’s Koran, chap. 5). “When ye 
encounter the infidels, strike off their heads until ye have made a 
great slaughter among them. . . Verily if God is pleased, he 
could take vengeance on them without your assistance ; but he com- 
manded you to fight his battles that he might prove the one of you 
by the other. As to those who fight in defence of God’s true 
religion, God will not ‘suffer their works to perish ; he will lead them 
into Paradise of which he hath told them. Oh! true believers ! for 
his religion he will assist you against your enemies ” (Locd., chap. 47). - 


ty 


CLIVATE NOT LTHEGAUSE..OF DIFFERENCE, 461 


It should be noted, however, that Mohammedanism en- 
couraged kindness to the poor. Alms are “a loan to 
God”; they “deliver from hell and secure Paradise.” 
The first lunatic asylums are said to owe their origin to 
this Faith. It taught also great kindness to animals, and 
admitted them to a future state of existence. 

We should not forget also that Mohammed attempted 
to reform his times by suppressing infanticide, inculcating 
temperance, and prohibiting gambling and divination." 


It can hardly be urged that climate alone bas caused all 
these differences between the non-Christian and the Chris- 
tian peoples. The Christian religion, looked at materially, 
is a product of a warm climate. Some of its purest and 
noblest disciples, who still profoundly influence the world, 
were natives or residents under almost a tropical sun. Its 
great conquests indeed have been won among northern 
races ; but with them it had especial obstacles. owing to the 
northern predisposition to intemperance and the greater 
struggle for existence necessary in colder climates. On the 
other hand, two of these faiths, the system of Confucius 
and the religion of Mohammed, cover many regions where 
the climates are severe and cold. The great standard- 
bearers of Mohammedanism—the Turks—were a northern 
and vigorous race, and the Arabs have none of the habits 
of a tropical people; indeed the latter are closely allied to 
the founders of Christianity—the Jews. 

A tropical climate undoubtedly tends to degrade the 
position of woman, in relaxing her energy and exposing 
her purity. But this evil is no greater than the tendency 
‘of a northern climate to stimulate intemperance. Chris- 
tianity is adapted to restrain and remove both evils. It 
may be true that for this Faith some races are more fitted 


1 Monier Williams. 


462 GESTA CHRISTI, 


than others; but all races can be improved and perhaps 
regenerated by it. 

Buddhism and Brahmanism have substantially failed of 
a great moral progress in India, China, and Japan; they: 
are proved not to be the absolute religions. Confucianism 
has produced no great progress in China ; and Mohamme- 
danism has utterly failed everywhere except with certain 
barbarous tribes in Africa. 

It would not perhaps be reasonable to argue from the 
imperfect fruits of these religions, that they were failures, 
It might fairly be alleged that they had not yet existed 
during sufficient time. But we can urge that, from their 
very nature and structure, they are not fitted for all phases 
of human development. They are not universal and abso- 
lute religions, and adapted to bring about the highest 
humane and moral progress. 

Were the world thoroughly and consistently Buddhistic 
or Confucian, it would be anything but a world fitted for 
the highest conditions of human advancement, or for the 
ideals of the mind. It could not long live up even to its 
own principles, as it would lack the life-giving power 
afforded by Christianity, | 


CHAPTER XXXVII. 


OBJECTIONS. RESUME OF REFORMS BEGUN. THE 
FUTURE OF MANKIND UNDER CHRISTIANITY. 


THE points necessary at the close of our investigation to 
consider, are: whether, supposing the Christian system to 
prevail and to thoroughly imbue individuals and society 
in‘ all directions, this would form the highest type of char- 
acter and the final and perfect development of mankind ; 
whether if all the world were Christian, it would be the 
world of our ideals. 

It is often and naturally objected! that the Christian 
character of the future will be deficient in the courageous 
and manly principles, and will not have been tried in the 
fiery furnace of discipline of the past—namely War. 

But it should be remembered that the natural conditions 
of the world, the struggle with the great forces of nature, 
will always cultivate physical courage ; and the eternal 
necessity in human society of defending the weak, rebuking 
wrong, standing by the unpopular cause, and even incurring 
shame and loss for the truth, will always train moral 
courage. Even if gons, hence, society should approach its 
complete development, the inevitable accidents and chances 
of life would continually call for the highest kind of 
courage. Even now in modern wars, there is little demand 
for savage pugnacity or a bloody revengeful temper, but 


1 See Renan, Marc Auréle, p. 595. 0 « « mais une société de 
parfaits serait si faible ! 
463 


464. GESTA CHRISTI. 


rather for a cool brain, unshaken nerve, the will which 
defeat cannot break, and that state of mind which simply 
disregards death and wounds where duty lies before. The 
courage most needed in modern battles is simply a readi- 
ness to be torn in pieces by machinery at the post of duty. 
Great numbers of persons fight through a campaign with- 
out ever seeing a personal opponent. S 

As civilization advances the moral courage will be more 
and more demanded ; and physical nerve and resolution 
will be gained, without exciting the violent passions, by 
struggles with nature. The unconquerable determination 
to overcome difficulties, the contempt of death, the scorn 
of cowardice as worse than death, the heroism which could 
throw away life like a straw for victory—which have been 
the crowning gains and glories of war in the past— might 
easily be shown by men in a world which had grown 
beyond war in their struggles with nature, with the tre- 
mendous forces around them, and amid the inevitable 
accidents and chances of life. 

The Christian ideal has always been far in advance of 
past ages ; it is still beyond our present condition. Men 
can only make a compromise between it and the necessary 
demands of the times. But the compromise continually 
approaches, century by century, the original ideal. It would 
be difficult now (though not impossible) for an individual 
to conform his life to these higher principles and survive 
in the struggle for existence. As each century passes 
it becomes easier. It would be in this age apparently 
impossible for a nation to conform to these principles, and 
survive. But in each century the nations approach them 
more nearly. As society advatices, the Christian type of 
character will become more suited to the surrounding con- 
ditions, and there is no reason to fear, that man under this 
moulding, will be shaped in any weak or unmanly form. 


f 


OBFECTIONS TO CHRISTIAN IDEAL, 465 


All that a barbarous and bloody past gave of vigour and , 
courage, will be given by a future of peace and humanity / 
under the unavoidable dangers and chances of life. | 

A similar objection is that the Christian type of char- 

acter would in its unselfishness unfit men for the struggle 
for existence, and that the followers of this morality and 
Religion would be over-reached by the “children of this 
world,’ and finally worsted in the contest. But the Chris- 
tian teachings do not require to love others more than self, 
but as ourselves. And the highest Christian benevolence 
teaches that the selfishness of others must sometimes be 
resisted for their sake, even more than our own. It is true 
that as society and trade are constituted now, a complete 
living after the Christian ideal is difficult, but with each 
generation, a greater harmony arises between the conditions 
and thistype of character. Even now it is not certain that 
a society completely governed by the Christian morality 
might not exist successfully amid the selfish and jarring 
‘interests of the world. It is easily conceivable that the 
world might advance with all its present progress, and yet 
all societies be inspired by these elevated principles. There 
is nothing in the Christian ideal which unfits a man for the 
utmost activity and vigour; and if this activity regard 
the rights of others and consult their interests, it will not 
be the less likely to attain its objects. At all events, with 
each advancing century, this type of character will be more 
fit for its conditions and surroundings. 

It has often been urged in these pages that the teachings 
of the great Master were in no way inconsistent either. 
with modern advance in rational accumulation of wealth 
or in institutions of political® liberty, though objections 
urging this have often been made against this moral system. 

1 See even so candid a writer as Laurent (Ast. du Droit des Gens) 
and Renan, and others. 

hy 


466 GESTA CHRISTI 


The type of character moulded by this system is essen- 
tially the self-controlled, the earnest, the one careful of the 
claims of others and responsible to a higher Power. Such 
a character under modern conditions must be industrious 
and saving and laborious. Idleness, dependence, self- 
indulgence or extravagance would equally be inconsistent 
with its ideals. It is true that the teachings of Jesus set 
themselves against an excessive pursuit of wealth, and to 
His immediate disciples, enforced communism of goods, 
But, considering Oriental metaphors and the peculiar con- 
ditions which surrounded our Lord, it may be doubted if 
He urged for all men anything more than a greater dis- 
tribution of property than had ever been known. The 
Apostles apparently thus interpreted His words. There 
is in His teachings, an ideal in regard to property which is 
far in advaiice of the social progress of mankind. .A future, 
in which, after all reasonable tastes and wants of every 
kind had been satisfied, accumulation was entirely devoted 
to the public good, would not be one with which political 
economy has reason to quarrel or which would discourage 
industry. It would offer to labour the highest reward which 
the most benevolent nature could seek. Nothing like de- 
pendence or idleness is a legitimate fruit of Christianity. 
The monasticism of history has not come from Christ, 
nor is that charity which degrades the sufferer in helping 


him and which sows other evils in curing the nearest, His | 


teaching. The drift of all His words is to seek one’s 
happiness in the ultimate highest happiness of all; to love 
others as one’s self, and God above all. The true Christian 
cannot knowingly do a man good in a way which will 
injure him ultimately, or will injure society. 


The peculiarity of Christ’s teachings, as has often been 


said, in regard to political matters, was that He left them 
entirely on one side, but threw in a principle into human 


a 


CHRISTIANIA ANDILIBERTL Y, 467 


society which was destined in after ages to overthrow or 
modify all existing institutions and governments. The 
value attached by Him to the individual, has affected all 
modern political systems and is destined to do so more 
and more. The bond of humanity He taught is already 
connecting persons under various forms of government, 
and is certain hereafter to reform governments and the 
relations of nations. 

It is true that the early Apostles, under the peculiar 
conditions of the Roman empire at the time, taught a 
submission to authority which cannot be’ a_ universal 
duty. But the essential character exemplified by Christ 
contained no elements which form the instrument or the 
victim of tyranny. A man trained to live in the great 
Task-master’s eye, looking at all men as equal before 
God, holding beliefs which no human authority could 
give or take away, determined to render to all their dues, 
and habitually looking beyond human ranks and dis- 
tinctions, could not in the nature of things be long a 
supporter of despotism whether in church or state. The 
Christian is essentially a believer in individual liberty 
whatever be the: form of government; the tendency of 
the Christian system is to permit all men to enjoy the 
utmost development of their faculties, and to oppose un- 
limited authority. The highest development of a con- 
trolled liberty to every man and every woman, is the 
natural fruit of the teachings of Jesus. 

Asa collateral evidence of the truth of this position, it 
may fairly be urged that those races and peoples whose 
members attempt (though only partially) to guide their 
lives by His direct teachings, and who, however imper- 
fectly, seek, or profess to seek, to model themselves on 
Him, are those who have most developed free institutions. 

The opposition in the past of the nominal expression of 


468 GES TANMCHRIS ET, 


Christianity—the Church—to Science is indeed one of the 


apparent objections to this system which has had most 
weight. 

It is undoubtedly true that a false theory of inspiration 
and a false interpretation of the scriptures, together with 
the spirit of bigotry, have thrown the religious bodies often 
in contest with science. But the teachings of the Master 
are not responsible for this. There is nothing in them 
which is opposed to the freest investigation and most 
thorough research. On the other hand, the humility and 
love of truth taught by Him, are favourable to the pur- 
suit of truth and would tend. to make the scholar more 
thorough and earnest. 

The faith in Supernaturalism cannot be urged as op- 
posed to Science, for the believer holds also to a system 
of laws in a sphere higher than that which science searches 
out, and to him also there is a “continuity” in the uni- 
verse, The victories of science are won in a domain which 
faith scarcely touches ; and from all that appears, a most 
devout believer in the supernatural might lead the re- 
searches of modern investigation in nature. To him in- 
deed there would be an intelligent Power behind nature, 
and a light shining through the mystery of the universe, 
but all known laws of existence could be as closely and 
impartially followed out, as by the most sceptical ma- 
terialist. Many of the great investigators of nature in all 
ages have been religious. 

An objection of greater weight to the Christian system 
is that, if of supernatural origin, or if the ultimate system 
of morals, it has been extraordinarily slow in imbuing the 
world with its principles and that some of the most terri- 
ble evils of society still survive. The reply has often been 
made to this objection, and to the philosophic mind would 
sccm a not unsatisfactory one, that with regard to all 


—— 


THE SLOW INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 469 


agencies, whether physical or moral, shaping this world, 
long periods of time seem necessary. Whatever be the 
theory of the universe, immense time appears indispen- 
sible for the working out of any of the great forces. It 
is no more inconsistent with supernatural Power to be 
during a thousand centuries slowly remoulding through 
natural influences the moral world, than during a like 
period to be gradually remoulding matter under the laws 
of Evolution, or to be laying the foundation for future 
kingdoms of life during uncounted centuries under the 
natural forces. 

All that we need to show is, that ere zs a moral Force 
producing certain definite though small results during a 
certain period of time; and of a nature adapted to produce 
indefinite similar results tn unlimited time. If these two 
premises be allowed of the Christian system, we can pro- 
nounce it safely the ultimate system of morals. 

The first of these, it has been the object of this volume 
to demonstrate. We have endeavoured to show what in 
a few centuries the Christian System has brought about; 
what changes it, in harmony with other influences working 
secondarily, has effected, what sufferings mitigated, what 
_ evils removed, what abuses reformed, and what new bonds 
of sympathy and humanity it has joined. 

Before showing what it is adapted to accomplish, we 
must point incidentally to certain obstacles, outside of 
itself, which have obstructed its progress in the past. 

It will be remembered that this Religion and morality 
have never acquired a full control over mankind. The 
great historical blunder of the Church—the early union 
with the State—lessened and crippled the moral influence 
of Christianity in Europe. The too speedy and superficial 
conversion of the masses in Europe, left a wide-spread 
paganization, especially of the peasantry. The influence 


470 GESLACCHRTS? Ii 


of state churches, of wealthy hierarchies, of political 
priests, and all the corruption and bigotry of the Church 
in the Middle Ages, tended to counteract the true working 
of the Faith. No doubt in modern days, the worldliness 
of the Church has equally interfered with the legitimate 
influence of this system. Even among its followers, the 
effects and inherited tendencies of ages of barbarism and 
unrestrained selfishness, still survive in mental habits and 
social customs, War is a relic of unchristian times, and 
is in many forms utterly opposed to the Religion of Love. 
Yet the power of this kind ‘of co-operation and the evil 
passions engendered affect the minds of all believers, and 
but few have escaped as yet its influences. 

So as regards the more selfish competition of trade, the 
teachings of Christ, even with His nominal followers, have 
reached but a few. Then, when we consider the relations 
of bodies of men, we find that in all governmental connec- 
tions, these instructions have had but the feeblest influence, 
and that this century only has seen the first important 
application of Christian principles to international rela- 
tions. We may therefore fairly say that Christianity has 
merely begun its workings in the world, and many hundred 
centuries must pass before it will show any important part 
of its true influence. 


Lvolution.—But what Christianity is adapted to effect 
may be best seen from examining the laws which seem to 
govern all human development. In the struggle for exist- 
ence, that individual or that race of men is the most sure to 
survive, which is the most fitted for its conditions, physical, 
mental, and moral. And as every faculty and power de- 
velops, and the relations of human beings with one another 
become more complicated, that race will lead the world 
which is most in harmony with the most advanced and re- 


EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY. 471 


fined conditions. The elements which especially govern the 
relations of men to one another in their highest assocta- 
tions, are sympathy, justice, the love of others’ happiness, 
the control of selfish tendencies, and the aiming at uni- 
versal good. 

In lower relations, we see in the history of the past, that 
such races as violated habitually ordinary morals, and 
were greedy of wealth, indifferent to injustice, tyrannical 
to the weak, corrupted by pleasure, weakened by unnatural 
passions, oppressive to the masses, or eager for mere 
conquest and unjust glory, finally were overthrown and 
perished. Their victors or survivors who took their places 
at first were perhaps little better than their predecessors, 
but they had gained the victory by some moral advantage, 
and this, acted upon by favouring circumstances, trans- 
mitted and increased by heredity, continually advanced 
these races. 

The races with lower moral development went to the 
wall, and those with higher, grew in moral power. Still 
this was not a steady moral advance, as many of the cir- 
cumstances were not favourable to it; and temporarily a 
victory in the struggle for existence was often given to 

a race lower in the moral scale. But on the whole and 
in a long period, vice weakens the physical power of a 
nation ; injustice raises up enemies internal or external ; 
excessive luxury saps vigour ; selfishness repels allies; and 
in one form or other, a low moral standard as compared 
with the prevailing, weakens its resisting power, and causes 
it finally to succumb. As we rise to higher relations, we 
can see that as man develops and society advances, the 
races in which there is the highest development of sym- 
pathy, of benevolence, of sexual purity, of truth and 
justice, will tend to be the strongest in body, the most 
closely united, the most prosperous, the most free, the 


472 GEST ASCARISTI: 


most influential on inferior races, and the most powerful 
as attracting other members to themselves, All the des- 
tructive influences of the world will be less operative on 
them. The death-rate of such a race will tend to be the 
lowest possible; the physical vigour the highest; .the 
inequalities of fortune will be the most compensated for ; 
the trade and intercourse with all other nations the freest ; 
the laws and social customs will the most approach perfect 
justice and humanity ; all the resources and abilities of the 
most favoured members will be habitually used for the 
most unfortunate, but only so far as to strengthen them. 
The power of such ‘a race will far transcend anything 
hitherto known, for each member is permitted the utmost 
possible development of all his faculties, and vigour of 
intellect is almost sure to accompany great moral advance. 

In the struggle for existence, a perfected race like this 
will be as much beyond the races which history has known, 
as the Aryan races now are beyond the African. It will] 
tend to supplant them. It will win the fruits of nature 
first. It will absorb from them. It will resist destructive 
influences better. If driven to physical contest, it would 
conquer them; it would inevitably lead all other races, 
Though opposed to war, and living habitually in bene- 
volence, such a people in the defence of rights would be 
almost irresistible. But its final triumphs would be like 
those of civilization—gentle, profound, and full of blessing 


to all others. Men would follow such a nation, as they. 


have followed prophets and saviours, It would be the 
‘centre of the higher life of the world. ; 

The currents of Evolution plainly set towards such an 
end. The struggle for existence, heredity, and the survival 
‘of the fittest, must give the final triumph in the life of 
men to the races of high morality; to such qualities as 
sympathy, unselfish benevolence, purity, justice and truth. 


EVOLUTION AND BENEVOLENCE. eer GA. 


These are alone suited to the highcst development of 
society, and the most complete and perfect working 
of each individual with every other. Selfishness, vice, 
injustice, violence, hate, and lust, tend to weaken, to 
destroy, to disorganize, and finally to cause defeat in the 
struggle. , 

A profound and acute writer, a Positivist, Mr. Fiske, 
has somewhere said that the drift of society under Natural 
Selection and the other forces of Evolution is “towards 
weakening the power of selfishness, and strengthening the 
power of sympathy.” 

If it be objected that this theory eases out of view one 
of the great and solemn facts of life—the drift toward 
evil or inherited and accumulated tendency to depravity— 
the reply is that with the race we have imagined, Inherit- 
ance may eventually be turned toward good. After 
hundreds of generations of human beings, guided by such 
principles as we have indicated, and inspired by the 
Divine Spirit, the immense power of heredity reduplicating 
any tendencies physical or moral would be accumulated 
in favour of benevolence, purity and truth, and would open 
the mind to spiritual and moral truth, even from infancy. 
No human knowledge can measure the results when at 
length under Divine influences that mysterious tendency 
towards evil which has so tormented earnest thinkers— 
that principle of heredity, reduplicating in its power at - 
every new generation—shall be turned towards good, and 
the first unconscious impulses be in the direction of 
unselfishness and of religion. Then the “ gemmules ” 
which may have descended for a thousand generations, 
whether containing physical forces or influencing moral 
tendencies, will be preponderatingly those which make 
the body pure and self-controlled, and draw the soul 
towards goodness and God. 


474 GESTA CHRISTI. 


It need not be said that Christianity is adapted to form 
such a race as we have described above. Its tendency is 
to remove all the destructive agencies. It teaches the 
brotherhood of man and the priceless value of each human 
being, and therefore undermines. serfdom and slavery, 
which have overthrown so many commonwealths, and 
steadily elevates the masses who make the strength of a 
state. It urges universal love and justice, and therefore 
leads men to aid one another in every possible way, to 
assist by wise charity, to remove unjust burdens, to take 
off the trammels on trade. and intercourse, to pass just 
laws and abolish ancient abuses, Under its teachings of 
“doing to others as we would have others do to us,” and 
“loving our neighbours as ourselves,” sympathy and un- 
selfish benevolence are the controlling elements in this 
higher condition. It opposes and must finally do away 
with WAR—perhaps the greatest curse on mankind. In 
defending marriage and presenting the highest ideal of 
purity as a religious obligation, it strengthens physical , 
power and diminishes the great offence of women, and 
will at length remove it. It binds families together, and 
tends thus to preserve the greatest physical vigour. It 
teaches temperance and moderation, and by religious 
motives resists the fatal appetite of modern days—that 
for extreme alcoholic stimulus. 

In presenting the dignity of man it tends to root out the 
- degraded character of Pauperism ; and by teaching that 
benevolence must ever regard the highest welfare of, the 
recipient, it prevents indiscriminate alms-giving. Trade 
under it will be governed by honest and unselfish principles. 
Under the guiding words of the Master, a. new principle 
of the distribution of wealth will prevail in the completed 
society of the future. Men will hold riches for all. The , 
surplus beyond reasonable wants and desires wil] be con- ! 


FUTURE UNDER CHRISTIANITY. A75 


tinually distributed in means of education, of wise charity, 
and of public improvement. Possibly the laws themselves 
will forbid accumulation beyond a fixed amount; or all such 
matters will be left to a Christianized public opinion. Vice, 
lust, violence, cruelty, neglect of offspring, robbery, thievery 
and all the practices which disorganize a community will be 
resisted by the most powerful motives which can work on 
the human mind. That which especially ensures the future 
of a race—its physical and moral care for its young-—is 
especially encouraged by this Faith. Under it sympathy 
and unselfish benevolence are stimulated to their utmost. 
It offers all the conditions which Evolution requires to form 
the perfect race or society. 

But it does more than present a system of ultimate 
morals. It throws in a Force which Evolution does not 
reckon upon, and which hastens on all the currents for good, 
working in human life. It offers the love for an unequalled 
character, for a divine Person who embodies all abstract 
morality : it throws about Him and His teachings, the halo 
and mystery of a Religion: it presents to the individual 
struggling for a higher morality, hopes and fears which take 
hold of all that is grand and awful in the universe. It even 
makes morality only the blossom and fruit of the love it 
would implant for this transcendent Being and of the faith 
in unseen and eternal realities. In loving the highest ex- 
cellence as personified in CHRIST, the man unconsciously 
loves the happiness of all created beings, and is planted in 
the highest morality. 


We have thus attempted to show in this volume, what 
improvements in human condition, and what assistance to 
humane and moral progress have originated in a compara- 
tively brief period, from Christianity. We have inferred 
from these changes which it has caused during a few 


476 GESTA CARISTL. 


centuries, what it will probably bring about in a very long 
period. From its own nature too, we have reasoned that 
Christianity is adapted to produce a perfect system of 
human society. Nothing better has been or can be con- 
ceived by the mind of man, to make man better or happier. 
Is it not then reasonable to infer that the Christian Religion 
is “the absolute and universal Religion :” that its Founder, 
JESUS the CHRIST, was substantially what he claimed to be, 
and that His revelation of the future life may be received 
with the same confidence, as His instruction about the 
present. . 

A Being who can lead for all future ages, the moral and 
humane progress of humanity, may well claim a respect 
for His words which no other being can demand. The 
“Son of man” may well be the “Son of God:” the Gesta 
Christ? may become the Gesta Dei, and He reveal not 
only Life but Immortality to man, 


A TING De 


ANCIENT HUNGARIAN LEGISLATION. 


THE ancient laws of St Stephen, King of Hungary, who reigned 
about 1000 A.D., bear out all that’ has been said of the humane 
progress urged by Christianity in other ancient codes of Europe. 

Manumission of slaves is encouraged, and if made by will, no 
one is allowed to break it; and if only promised by a master, his 
widow must carry out the purpose of her husband p70 redemptione 
anime, for the salvation of her soul (11, 17). No free man is 
permitted under any pretext to be enslaved (rr, 20). 

Piety and compassion and the Christian virtues are urged by 
the king, as if he were a pastor rather than a ruler, especially on 
the ground that “the Lord of virtues is the King of kings” (Nain 
Dominus virtutum ipse est Rex Regum, 11-10). 

The religious principle of equality is seen in the law that the 
property of a peasant should be divided equally among sons and 
daughters (111, 29), and respect for woman in the entire power 
given to the widow over her property (11, 24). 

The barbaric element, not yet modified by religion, is found in 
these laws, in the compensation affixed to the murder of a wife. 
The nobleman escapes with the payment of fifty bullocks anda 
penance of fasting; the soldier with ten bullocks and a fast, and 
the ignoble with five bullocks and a lke penance (11, 14). 

This legislation is so soon after the introduction of Chris- 
tianity, that the idea of the dower has a barbaric tinge, as a 
compensation to the wife for what she has endured in marriage. 
Dotem dicimus, que uxori propter ejus deflorationem, et con- 


cubitum, de bonis mariti datur (1, 90). 
477 


478". \\i APPENDIX. 


The dower had not yet received its new character under reli. 
gion. It was only the coarse Morgengabe. | 
(See Corpus Juris Hungaria Bude, 1779. Sancti Steph. Reg. 
Dec. about 1000 A.D.) | 
The remarkably free position of woman in Hungarian history, 
and her legal independence now, is no doubt due to these early 
influences of the Christian Religion, It certainly did not come 
from Roman Law or the Teutonic codes and customs, . 
(See also Die Ungar. Staaisbiirgerinn, etc. J.v. F ejes. Pest. 
1812), Bee. 


¥} 


Ne 


Emilius, Paulus, referred to, 25. 

A.thelbirht, King, law against feuds, 
214. 

Aethelbert, law of, concerning mat- 
riage and wives, 122. 

Affection, the modern link between 

. parent and child, 14, 15 

Agnosticism, woman under, 298, 
299. 

Agobard, St., quoted, 119. 

Aim, the author's, in this work, 2-5. 

Alabamé, case of the, 351; arbi- 
tration on, 353, 354- 

Alemanns, laws of, concerning 
marriage, 122. 

Alfred, King, law concerning 
strangers, I93 ; moral laws of, 
209, 210; concerning feuds, 
215 ; extract from the will of, 
concerning slaves, 244; slaves 
under, 247. 

Algiers, woman in, 460. 

Alms-giving, the root of excessive, 
104. 

America, appeal for murder in, 172, 
173; the stranger in, 195, 190; 
legislation respecting woman in, 
291 ; law of divorce in, 307, 308 ; 
and privateering, 337-339; in- 
structions for regulating war, 
343; opponents to slavery, 371— 

3 


3 
73 final struggle to abolish 


5 


479 


slavery, 384-386; duelling in, 
396-398 ; reformatories in, 402 ; 
educational charities in, 402, 403 ; 
societies for the protection of 
animals, 404; cruel punish- 
ments in, 407, 408 ; imprison- 
ment for debt, 409 ; intemper- 
ance In, 434, 435, 436, 444. 

Amiens, “ Peace of God ” at, 148. 

Anecdote, refusing to fight, 89. 

Anglo-Saxon, marriage laws of, 
129, 130; law, nature of, 206, 
2071208. 

Anglo-Saxons and the shipwrecked, 
197, 198. 

Animals, societies for the protection 
of, 404. 

Anti-Slavery Society, American, 
founded, 382. 

Appendix, 477, 478. 

Apostles, their idea of marriage, 
31, 32. 

Arabia, a proverb of, 459. 

Arabs, early civilization of, 456; 
influence of Mohammedanism 
upon, 456, 457- 

Aragon, the decree of a king of, 
464, 465. 

Arbitration, origin of, 85; history 
of, in Germany, 155, 156; forms 
Ofaus 7 litstances: of, I hounthe 


resulta uote Christianity, “2oe: 


480 , INDEX. 


Grotius on, 333; Christian and 
possible, 346; instances of, 346- 
354; willit become universal, 355. 

Aristotle, suggestion of, to relieve 
poverty, 99. x 

Arms, brotherhood of, 2035" 264. 
an old ballad on, 264. 

Arms, use of, restricted in war, 345. 

Armstrong, the case of the, 3409. 

Arthur, King, the Round Table of, 
256; gentleness of, 262 ; Britain 
under, 263. 

Asceticism and celibacy, evil effects 


of, 32, 33. 

Associations, peace, 148. 

Asylums for orphans in Europe, 
a2, 

Augustine, St., quoted (note), 91. 

Austria, instruments of torture used 
in, 406. 


Austrian Code, divorce under the, 
305. 

Authority,Roman parental, 9; modi- 
fied by Stoics and Christian 
emperors, I2. 

Authors, immorality of classical, 
38. 

Authors, Latin, on the exposure of 
children, 72-75. 

Authors, Roman, on parental power, 
IO, 11; on divorce and woman’s 
degradation, 23-25. 

Austrage, the, 154-150. 


Ballad, an old, quoted, 255, 258; 
on brotherhood in arms, 264. 

Balle, John, preaching of, referred 
Th a2s4. 

Barbadoes, protest against sla-_ 
very in, 374. 

Barbarossa, Emperor, cruelty of, | 
326, 7 


Barnes, Dr. A., on slavery, 381. 


Battle, wager by, 161-163 ; pre- 


valence of, 164; mode of. pro- 
cedure, 165-167 ; form of oaths, 
165, 166; instances of; 167% 
opposed by the Church, 168 ' 
opposed by monarchs, 169, 170 ; 
opposed to the Christian spirit, 
170; slow abolition of, 171; in 
capital — offences, 171 ae 
abolished by Christianity, 273, 
274. 
Bayard, precepts of the mother of, 
~255; noble words of, 258. 

Benevolence and evolution, 473. 

Bentham on duelling, 391, 392. 

Bequests, ancient charitable, 100, 

Bernhardi on torture, 187, 188. 

Bietigheim, demands of the peas- 
ants of, 234. 

Blackstone, on woman under Com- 
mon Law, 288, 289, 

Blood-money, 138, 

Blood-revenge, taught by Confucius, 
454. 

Bluntschli, Prof., on private marine 
property, 339; new war code of, 
342, 343¢ 

Book, the democratic, 430. 

Boston Herald quoted, 292, 203. 

Bourges, Archbishop of, charter of 
peace, 150. 

Brahmanic faith, corruption of, 447. 

Bristol, the slave market Of; 242: 

Britain, condition under King 
Arthur, 263. 

Britain, Great, and Brazil, arbitra- 
tion between, 350, 

British colonies, slavery in, 376; 
abolition of, 377, 

British slave trade, commencement 
of, 368, 369; reasons for encou- 


Va 
5: 


INDEX. 481 


raging it in the colonies, 370; 
opponents to, 373, 374; Parlia- 
ment petitioned to abolish, 374 3 
Clarkson...on,, 374; ‘the~ long 
struggle against and abolition of, 
375: 

Brotherhood, Christian, 245. 

Bruce, King, and the poor woman, 
260, 261. 

Brussels, International Conference 
at, 359. 

Buddhism, influence of, on woman’s 
position, 36; teachings of, 451 ; 
defects of, 452; in China, 453; 
in Japan, 456. 


Cabet on Christianity, 419. 

Ceesar referred to, 61. 

Canute, King, laws of, 212, 213. 

Capitularies, Charlemagne’s, 302- 
305. 

Cargoes, first African slave, 366, 367. 

Caste, Hindoo, 448. 

Cato, Porcius, stricture on woman, 
24; on slavery, 47, 48. 

Cavalai, Hugh de, and his fellow- 
knight, 263, 264. 

Celibacy, evil effects of, 32, 33. 

Centurion, the Christian, 89. 

Challenge, form of, in the middle 
ages, 142; instances of, 143. 

Chalons, council of, and schools, 
219; decree concerning slaves, 
228, 229 

Character, Paul’s ideal, for man, 
103 ; ideal of chivalric, 265-268 ; 
type of, moulded by Christ, 466. 

Charities, educational, in the 
United States, 402, 403. 

Charity, 96; and the ancient 
world,g7; modern, the result of 
Christ's teaching, 101; Roman 


emperors advocate, 102 ; effects 
of, 103 ; an institution of Chris- 
tianity, 279, 280. 

Charlemagne, injunction concern- 
ing widows, 131 ; laws concern- 
ing strangers, 192, 193; Capitu- 
laries, 202-205 ; and schools, 220; 
letter to the abbot of Fulda, 220, 
wo, 

Charles V. and the African slave 
trade, 367. 

Chastity, Justinian on, 35 ; German, 
and Roman impurity, 118, 119. 
Chaucer, description of a knight 

by, 258. 

Child, position of, 
tianity, 218, 219. 
Childhood, safeguards for, 317, 318. 
Children, Roman, exposure of, 72 ; 

Latin authors on, 72-75 ; Stoics 
protest against,75 ; early Fathers 
protest against, 76, 77; laws 

against, 77-80. ; 

Children, sale of, in Europe, 81, 82 ; 
rewards for the increase of, 99. 

Children, charities for, 402, 403. 

Childrens’ Aid Society, New 
NOvkeus boi 

Chili and the United States, arbi- 
tration between, 350. 

China, Buddhism in, 453; Con- 
fucianism in, 453; position of 
woman in, 454, 455- 

Chivalry, character of, 253 ; oaths 
of, 254, 255; woman and, 257 ; 
pity for an enemy taught by, 
258; courtesy, 259; humanity 
of, 260; the prisoner OL 2GE 4 
gentleness an attribute of, 262 ; 
and hospitality, 262; ideals of, 
263 ; brotherhood in arms, 263 ; 
devotion to ladies, 264; the ideal 


Il 


under Chris- 


482 INDE X, 


of character, 267 ; survival of the 
Christian element in, 268, 269. 

Christ, a new moral force, 1 ; and 
personal purity, 29; and mar- 
riage, 30, 300 ; silencé on slavery, 
42, 43; principles of His teach- 
ing, 43, 44; opposed to war, 88; 
upon property, 93 ; communism 
of, 94, 95 ; modern charity and, 
Iol; and the conquest of the 
Roman world, 106; teaching 
opposed to torture, 109; silent 
victories of, 270, 271. 


Christian II. of Denmark, and: 


serfdom, 240. 

Christianity, influence on Roman 
parental power, 12-14; on the 
law of succession; 16-18; in- 
fluence on Roman marriage, 21- 
23, 28, 33, 34 ; position of woman 
under, 35; and slavery, 45; 
versus the Church, 46; and 
rehabilitation of labour, 69 ; and 
children, 83; a barbarous race 
without, 112, 113; a blessing to 
the Germans, 119, 120; and 
divorce, 128; and feuds, 141; 
and mental progress, 217, 218 ; 
position of the child under, 218, 
219; charity an institution of, 
279, 280; and duelling, 292 ; 
basis of political economy, 421 ; 
a grand restraint, 461; liberty 
and, 466, 467 ; slow influence of, 
468, 469; what has retarded, 
469, 470; evolution and, 470; 
the race to be made by, 474. 

Christians, opposition to gladia- 
torial shows by, 62,63 ; humane 
laws concerning, 84. 

Church, character of the, seen, 2 ; 


2 


the true and invisible, 3 ; slaves 


in the, 45; versus Christianity, 
46; slavery and the, 53, 60; 
forbids the mutilation of slaves, 
67 ; slaves ransomed by the, 68 ; 
care of foundlings by, 81, 82; 
inefficiency of a State, 112; and 
feuds, 140; superstition encou- 
raged by, 160, 161; wager by 
battle opposed by, 168, 169; 
opposes the ordeal, 174; op- 
poses torture, 185, 186; services 
to intellectual progress, 218 ; and 
chivalry, 256 ; and concubinage, 
313 ; and the African slave trade, 
365, 366 ; opposes duelling, 393. 

Church and State, effects of the 
union of, 51, 52. 

Churches, enriched by charity, ror, 
102 ; the blessings of Christian, 
427, 428. | 

Cicero, and Roman parental power, 
II ; and woman, 20; on divorce, 
23; wives of, 25. 

Citizen, Grotius on the. 332; dur- 
ing war, 341, 342. 

Civilization, woman a factor in, 36 ; 
moral courage and, 464. 

Clarkson on the slave trade, 374. 

Classic nations and international 
law, 323, 324. 

Clay, Henry, on duelling, 397. 

Clergy, ordeal approved by some 
of the, 175 ; English, opposition 
to slavery, 373. 

Climate versus religion, 461,, 

Clubs, Roman, 100. 

Code, Justinian, Roman parental 
power under, 13, 14; and laws of 
succession, 16-18 ; and marriage, 
22: 

Code, the Napoleon, referred to, 
134. 


INDEX. 


Code, the Theodosian, referred to, 
12, 39. 

Codes, New, for regulating war, 
342 ; probable international, 357. 

Co-emption, the marriage called, 
20,20: 

Coleman, Elihu, on slavery, 372. 

Collegia, the Roman, 100. 

Coloni, the, 70, 224, 225; in the 

' Middle Ages, 236. 

Colonies, and slavery, the, 370 ; the 
British, 376; abolition of slavery 
in, 377. 

Communism, Christ’s, 94,95; and 
Christianity, 414, 416. 


Communities, mercantile shipping, . 


198. 
Comnenus referred to, 59. 
Concubinage, law reiating to 


Roman, 28; and the Church, 


313; influence. of + Christian 
teaching on, 313, 314. 
Conference, International, at 


Brussels, 359. 

Confarreation, form of marriage, 
lore e 

Confession under torture, 179. 

Confucianism, teaching of, 453, 454. 

Ceoneress of Paris, 1856, referred to, 
338, 346, 348. 

Connecticut, laws of divorce in, 308. 

Conrad, Emperor, referred to, 237. 

Constantine, Emperor, and Roman 

« parental power 13; and the 
laws of succession, 16; union 
of Church and State under, 
51, 52; slavery laws under, 
52-54; quoted, 63; and the 
protection of children by, 78 ; 
review of the humane legisla- 
tion of, $4, 85. 

Convert, the, and the gladiate- 
rial show, 62, 63. 


483 


Co-operation, the advantages of, 
473, 414. 

Council of Limoges, ordinance of 
peace of, 149. 

Councils, and the exposure of chil- 
dren, 79; efforts to establish 
peace, 148-150; and_ schools, 
219, 220; and slavery, 249. 

Courage, and future Christian 
character, 463. 

Courtesy, chivairy and, 259-261. 

Courts, formation of arbitration, 
357; objections to, 360. 

Crime, fines inflicted for, 139; 
the result of drink, 434, 435. 
Crusades, the effects of, on man- 

umission, 237. 


Dana referred to, 340. 

Daughters, the Roman’s power 
over his, 10, Il. 

Days, sacred, and feuds, 139. 

Death, the penalty of, 404, 405. 

Debt, imprisonment for, 408-410. 

December, the month of offerings, 
102, 

Democracy, what leads to, 430. 

Denmark, serfdom in, 240. 

Depravity, Roman, in the first 
Christian century, 24, 25; and 
legislation, 26. 

Devices, religious, 
peasants, 233. 

Divisions, objects of, in this work, 
= eal 

Divorce, Roman freedom of, 23; 
authors on, 23, 24; instances of 
Roman, 25 ; three conditions of, 
26; under the Justinian code, 


of revolted 


27; Scandinavian, 124, 125 ; 
Christianity opposed to, 128 ; 
Christian view of, 301; and 


484 , INDEX. 


Roman law, 302, 303; Church 
view of the Middle Ages, 303 ; 
Protestant reformers in favour of, 
304; modern tendency in favour 
of freer, 304, 305 ; in the United 
States, 307, 308 ; result and dan- 
ger of license in, 308, 309 ; evils 
of freedom of, 310, 311. 

Dooms, King Ethelred’s, 211, 212. 

Dos, Roman laws relating to, 129. 

Dower, the modern, in marriage, 
120: 

Drink, statistics of, 434, 435. 


Droit ad’ Aubaine, the, 193-195 > 


abolition of, 195. 

Du Quesclin, dying words of, 258. | 

Duel, the judicial, 165 ; of honour, 
393, 394- 

Duelling, Bentham’s views of, 391, 
392; Christian views of, 392; 
the Church opposed to, 393; in 
Trance, 394; in England, 396; 
in the United States, 396-398. 

Duels, Grotius on, 332. 


Economical ideas, progress in, 423. 

Edmund, King, law of, against 
feuds; 214: 

E:ducation, a better form of charity, 
105; the councils and, 220; pro- 
moted by Christianity, 277; the 
popular fruits of Christianity, 
420. 


Edward IJI. and his French pri- 


soners, 259. 
Edward IV., letter on trade by, 422. 
Edward the Confessor, law against 
false swearing, 211; and Chris- 
tian brotherhood, 245. 
Eldon, Lord, on slavery, 366. 
Eliot, John, petition of, against 
slavery, 371, 372. 


Elsass, demands of the peasants of, 
234. 

Emancipation, the religious duty 
of, 53 ; progress of legal, 54, 55 ; 
the religious element in, 229, 231 ; 
forms of, 230, 231; gradual pro- 
cess of, 236-238. 

Emancipation of slaves in England, 
245, 246; forms of, 248 ; motives 
fot, 254,252) 

Empire, Roman, condition of, in the 
first century of Christianity, 44. 
Emperors, Christian, and Roman 

parental authority, 12. 

Emperors, Roman, and unnatural 
vices, 40 ; charity advocated by, 
102. 

Endowment, commencement of 
ecclesiastical, 102. 

Enemy, the knight taught pity for 
his, 258. 

England, wager by battle in, 165- 
167; the ordeal forbidden’ in, 
175.3 torture: in, 184i; geen 
against strangers in, 191; slavery 
in, 241,252; forms of manumis- 

sion in, 248; serfdom in, 250, 
2523 laws of divorce in, 305 ; 
efforts against the slave trade in, 
375 ; cruel punishments in, 407 ; 
intemperance in, 434, 435. 

England, duelling in, 394; petition 
to the Lords against, 395; Anti- 
duelling Association 
396 ; the Queen’s order against, 
396. 

English law concerning woman, 


134-136; statesmen on the ap-. 


peal for murder, 172; laws of, 
kings, 208-216; peasants’ up- 


risings, 235; and Scotchcourtesy, 


261. 


formed,. 


— ~—— oa 


INDEX. 485 


Epigram, Juvenal’s, 23, 24. 

Equality, Christianity teaches the 
principles of, 296. 

Erixon, the Roman knight, referred 
to, 10. 

‘“issay. on, Divorce,” 
quoted, 303. 

Ethelred, the doonis of, 211, 212. 

Europe, sale of children in, 81, 82 ; 
important work of woman in, 
297, 298 ; modern, and divorce, 
BOA, 305°). cost’ of. the: peace 
establishments of, 321 ; abolition 
of serfdom in, 388, 389 ; persecu- 
tion in, 442, 444. 

European prisons, great reforms in, 
400, 401. 

Evolution and Christianity, 470; 
and benevolence, 473. 


Woolsey’s, 


Faiths lacking Christianity, 462. 

Family, the ancient Roman, 15. 

Fathers, early, and personal purity, 
30; and the exposure of children, 
hs aw ge ose to war by, 
89-91. 

Fathers, Roman, power over their 
children, 9-11 ; power modified 
by the Stoics, 12; influence of 
Christianity on, 12 ; Constantine 
and, 13. 

Feuds, nature of personal, 137 ; and 
fines, 138; places and days sacred 
from, 139; decree against, 140; 
efforts of the Church against, 
140; Saxon laws against, 213 ; 
ana tne.) peace oleGod.! 214; 
King Alfred’s laws concerning, 
215: 

Fines, institution of, for injuries, 
138 ; scale of, 139. 

Fiske, Mr., quoted, 473. 


. Fulda, 


Force, Jesus a new moral, I. 

Forces, non-Christian, and mental 
stimulus, 217. 

Foundlings, care of, by the Church, 
ONeo2s 

Foulque, the knight, 257. 

Ag ance, tutelage abolished in, as 
rules of private war in, 1433 1 
the 11th century, 144 ; torture in, 
182, 183; the ‘stranger in, 193- 
195 ; slavery in, 238; divorce 
in, 305 ; freedom of royal serfs 
in, 389; duelling in, 394. 

Franco-Prussian war, proclamation 
during, 342. 

Franklin, Be. efforts: to 
privateering, 337. 

Free marriage, the Roman, 21 ; in 
the Middle Ages, 127. 

Free trade, 422-424. 

Freedom, religious ideas of, 335, 
336. se 

Froissart quoted, 259, 261, 264. 

abbot of, Charlemagne’s 
letter to, 220, 221. 

Future under Christianity, the, 474, 


475. 


abolish 


Gaius on the reason for the tute- 

_ lege of woman, 20. 

Games, gladiatorial, Roman, 61, 62. 

Garrison on the duty of emancipa- 
tion, 382. 

Geneva arbitration, the, 353, 354- 

Gentleness a knightly attribute, 
262. 

German code, torture under the, 
TOT, 152. 

Germans, character of the, III ; 
absence of chivalry among, 266. 
Germans, marriage of the ancient, 

125-127. 


486 INDEX. 


Germany, “ Peace of God” in, 153, 


154; arbitration in, 155-159; 
peasant. revolts in, 233,234; 
Christian influence against 


slavery in, 239. 

Gesta Christi, the real, 3. 

Gesta Det, the, 476. 

Giving, the duty of, taught by Christ, 
96. 

Gladiatorial games, Roman, 61; 
instances of, 61, 62; Christian 


opposition to, 62, 63; laws 
against, 63. 
Glanville on laws concerning 


woman, 134, 135 ; quoted, 166. 

God, societies of lovers of, 427, 
428. ; 

Good faith, Grotius on, 331. 

Gordon, Dr., on slavery, 373. 

Gortschakoff, Prince, quoted, 359, 
360. 

Government, 
Liberal, 429. 

Greeks and international law, the, 
321% 

Green, “History of England” by, 
quoted, 167. 

Grotius on international law, 329- 
332 39(on? “arbitration, 3337-acon 
persecution, 443, 444. 

Guelders, Duke of, and his pledge, 
260. 

Guilds, origin of Italian, 147. 


Christianity and 


Habits, reform of, a check to in- 
temperance, 439. 

Hautefeuille on privateering, 338. 

Hawkins, Sir J., first slave voyage 
of, 366. 


Henry,»Prince of. Portugal, and 


slavery, 367. 


\ 


Hindoo law, woman under, “Le 
position of woman, 448-450. 

Hindoos, religious ideas among, 
446, 447; indifference to suffer- 
ing by the (note), 447. 

Hindoo caste, 448. 

History, influence of unknown lives 
on, 2, 3; God ever working in ~ 
human, 445, 446 

Honour, the duel of, 393, 394. 

Hope, implantation of, in man, 428. 

Hospitality, knighthood and, 262. 

Hospitals, the first, 102, 103. 

Howard, John, 4oo. 

Howell the Good, laws of, 209. 

Humanity, the watchword of, 196 ; 
increase of, between nations, 
424. 

Hungarian law, and the stranger, 
193; ancient legislation, 477, 
478. 

Husband, the Roman, 20; power 
of the German, 117, 118, 125, 
126, 


Iceland, “ Peace of God” in, 159. 

Ideas, lives inspired by moral, 428, 
420. 

Ideas, progress in economical, 423. 

Ideal, the Christian, 464; objections 
to, 464, 465. 

Illinois, struggle to prevent slavery 
in (note), 383. 

India, reasons for want of progress. 
in, 448 ; position of woman in, 
448, 450. 

Indiana, laws of divorce in, 308. 

Individual, legal reform and the 
rights of the, 35. 

Industry, Christ teaches, 95. 

Ine, King, law against feuds, 214. 

Infidels, wars against, 329. 


INDE X. 


Inquisition, torture by the, 180. 

Institutions, ancient charitable, rot, 
102. 

Insurance societies, ancient, 99 ; 
modern, 416, 417. 

Intellect, Christianity stimulates 
the, /222,:223. 

Intemperance, causes of, 433, 438 ; 
fearful effects, 434; statistics of, 
434, 435 ; American laws against, 
436; best safeguard against, 437, 
438. 

International codes, probable form- 
ation of, 357; objections to, 360. 

International law, 320; early writers 
on, 328, 329 ; progress in modern, 
335: 

Islam, what is wanting in, 460. 

Italy, absence of chivalry in, 266. 


Jamaica, importation of slaves to, 
369, 370. 

Japan, failure of Buddhism in, 456. 

Jesus, a new moral force, I. 

Jews, persecution of the, 442. 

Jubilee, the seven years, in England, 
248, 

Judges, King Canute’s advice to, 
z13. 

“Judgments of the Sea” quoted, 
199. 

Judicial duel, the, 165. 

Julian law referred to, 22, 23. 

Jurisprudence, Roman, influence of 
the Stoics on, 46. 

Jus Gentium, the Roman, 322, 
324. 

Justinian code, parental power 
under, 13, 14; and succession, 
16-18 ; and marriage, 21 ; on un- 
natural vices, 39;. concerning 
slavery, 55-58; and the protec- 


487 


tion of woman, 66, 67 ; and the 
protection of children, 79, 80. 
Justinian, houses of mercy founded 
by, 80, 81. 
Juvenal, an epigram by, 22, 23. 


Keltic races, character of the, ITI. 

Kempis, Thomas a4, on copying 
manuscripts, 221, 222. 

King, the, the protector of widows, 
foie 

“ King’s Quarantine,” the, 151. 

Kings, laws of old English, 208-216. 

Knight, description of a young, 257; 
described by Chaucer, 258 ; gen- 
tleness an attribute of the, 262 ; 
in courts of justice, 264. 

Knighthood, the initiation into, 253- 
256; duties of, 256; the ideal 
of, 256; the Church and, 256; 
and hospitality, 262. 

Knights, honourable conduct of, 
260; parting of two, 263, 264; 
advice of Louis IX. to his, 266. 

Koran, the conception of God in 
the, 460 ; quoted (note), 260. 


Labour, the rehabilitation of, 69. 

Labourer, blessing of the Sabbath 
fOuthe aA10,4 t2c.elects On in. 
temperance on, 434. 

Ladies, devotion to the crown of 
chivalry, 264. 

Law, Anglo-Saxon, 206; nature 
of, 207,209. : 

Law, English, concerning woman, 
134-136. 

Law, Grandeur of the Roman, 160, 
161. 

Law, International, 320 ; early wri- 
ters on, 328, 329; progress in 
modern, 335-301. 


488 INDEX. 


Law, Julian, referred to, 22, 23. 

Law, maritime, England opposed 
to progress in, 338. 

Law, wager of, 163. 

Law, Welsh, on buying a wife, 12 

Law, woman under English com- 
mon, 286-290. 

Laws influenced by Christianity, 
270 277, 

Laws of nations, Grotius on the, 
329-334. 

Laws of old English kings, Be 216. 

Laws, religious, 211,272. 

Laws, Roman, for the amelioration 
of slaves, 50, 51; Constantine’s, 
52-54; Justinian’s, 55-58; Leo’s, 
58 ; for the protection ofactresses, 
66, 67; against exposing children, 
77-80. 

Legge’s “ Confucius” quoted, 455. 

Legislation, American, respecting, 
woman, 291-296. 

Legislation, Charlemagne’s, imbued 
with ES oe 202-205. 

Legislation, Constantine’s humane, 
84, 85. 

Legislation, European, for the ship- 
wrecked, 200. 

Legislation, Hungarian, 
477, 478. 

Legislation in advance of morality, 
206. 

Leicester, wager of battle at, 167. 

Leo, Emperor, slave laws of, 58: 

on the observance of Sunday,86. 

Lex Pompeta de Parric., 11. 

Liberal Government and_ Chris- 

— tianity, 466, 467. 

Liberty, a Stoic’s apothegm on, 
48, 49; Justinian’s laws concern- 
ing, 55, 56; Christianity and, 
466, 467. 


ancient, 


Life, influence of woman in social, 
2098. 

Limoges, council of, and peace, 
149. 


Lives inspired by moral ideas, 428, 
429. 

London, free trade for the men of, 
420, 

Louis, Saint, letter of, 152 ; instruc- 
tion to his knights, 266. 

Love, power of the religion of, 355. 


Maine, Sir H., “ Early History of 
Institutions ” quoted, 35. 

Maiuma, the Roman show, 65. 

Mankind, character of the progress 
of, 9. 

Manners, an instance of knightly, 
260. 

Manu, laws of, quoted, 448; on 
woman, 449. | 

Manumission, forms of, 3,30, 333i 

Manumission, forms of in England, 

248. 

Manuscripts, 
221 299% 

Marcian quoted, 12. 

Marlo quoted, ars. 

Marriage, three forms of ancient 
Roman, 20; influence of Chris- 
tianity on, 21, 109, 110 ; Constan- 
tine’s legislation affecting, 26, 27 ; 
Christ’s ideas of, 30, 31; 'the 
apostles’ ideas of, 31, 32; Chris- 
tianity and Roman, 33, 343 Jus- 
tinian on, 34, 35; humane laws 
concerning, 87, 88. 

Marriage, ancient German, 119; 
original form of the Teuthnee 
121, 122; Scandinavian, 124; 
ade German customs, 125-127 ; 
gradual elevation of, 129; Charle- 


copying of ancients 


INDEX. 


macne’s laws affecting, 204 ; puri- 
fied by Christianity, 271, 272. 

Marriage and morals, 300-303 ; 
Christ’s estimate of, 300; Chris- 
Hhattiwdectrine’ Sof! 301. 1302"3 
Church’s idea of, 303; Ameri- 
can ideas of, 305-307); how ‘re- 
garded in New York, 311, 312; 
the model of, taught by Christ, 
312 ; future legislation concern- 
ing, 312; a Hindoo’s feelings 
about, 450. 

Maximilian, the Christian soldier, 
89. 

Mayence, council of, and schools, 
219. 

Mediation, war to be prevented 
by, 348 ; instances of, 348-350. 
Mercantile communities and the 

shipwrecked, 198. 

Mercy, houses of, for foundlings, 
80, 81. 

Messenger, a Divine peace, 151. 

Middle Ages, arbitration in, 154- 
159 ; wager by battle in, 161-172; 
the ordeal in, 174-177; and in- 
ternational war, 324 ; barbarities 
Obthe: 325: 

Middle passage, horrors of, 364, 
365. 

Mill’s ‘ History of India” quoted, 

447. 

Minors, selling the home of, 87. 

Missions, 426. 

Mohammedanism, influence of, 
A456=458';~ effects +-of, 459°; “en- 
courages kindness to the poor, 
461. 

Monarchs, English, and the slave 
trade, 366-368. 

Monarchs, opposition of, to wager 
by battle; 16), 170. 


489 


Montesquieu, a saying of, 365. 
Moore’s “History of Slavery” 
quoted, 371, 373. | 
Morality, Christ and personal, 30 ; 

debasement of ancient, 38. 
Morals, ultimate system Of, 469. 
Morgengabe, the, 119, 129. 
Monastery, slaves entering a, 56. 
Mother, position of the American, - 

293, 294. 

Mother, the Roman, 19, 20 ; under 
Justinian law, 22, 23. 
Munster, Treaty of, referred to 
an : 
Murder, appeal to battle in, 171, 
172; English statesmen on, 172 ; 
an instance of, 173; abolition 
OLA 3. 

Mussulmans of India (note), 457. 


Napoleon III., Mexican vessels 
restored by, 339, 340. 

Nations, modern relations between, 
320; and mercantile private pro- 
petty, 339, 340; international 
law and non-Christian, 361, 362 ; 

_ unity of, increased by freedom in 
trade, 422,,423;° humanity be- 
tween, 424. 

Neckar, the revolted peasants of, 
234 

New York, divorce in, 307 ; mar- 

riage ihy 3 Ft 3 12, 

New World, slaves introduced into 

the, 364. 365. 

Nicholl, Sir J., quoted, 341. 

Norman Conquest, slavery after 
the, 249. 

Norman, ideal of chivalry, the, 
263. 

Northern nations and intemper- 
ance, 433, 434- 


490 INDEX. 


Novelle, Justinian’s, on marriage, 
34. 


Oath, the compurgator’s, 163. 

Oaths, form of, in wager by battle, 
165. 166. 

Oaths, knighthood, 254, 255. 

Offerings, the month of, ro2. 

Oppressed, Roman laws favouring 
thes, 

Ordeal, the, 174 ; Church opposed 
to, 174; gradual abolition of, 


175-177; abolished by Chris- 


tianity, 273, 274. 
Origen quoted, 90, 91. 
Orleans, synod of, and schools, 219, 
Orphans, laws concerning, 85. 
Otterburne, the Scots after, 259. 
Ovid referred to, 73. 


Palaye, St., on knighthood, 255, 257. 

Paris, congress of, 1856, referred to, 
338, 346, 348. 

Parliament, English, 
against slavery, 374. 

Paternal authority, Roman, 9, 12N 

Paul, St., on God working in man, 
446. 

Paul the Stoic, on woman, 25. 

Pauperism and the Christian, 417, 
418. 

Pauperism, causes of Roman, 96; 
imperial relief of, 98. 

Paulus, Julius, referred to, 75. 

Peace establishments, cost of Euro- 
pean, 321; 

“Peace of God,” nature of the, 
145, 146; preaching the, 161, 
152; restraining feuds. 214. 

Peace, the pledge of, 147; efforts 
to establish, 148, 149; versus 


war, 333. 


petitioned 


Peace, victories of, 346-354 ; final 
step to universal, 357; the idea 
of Christ, 361. 

Peasants, condition of, in the Middle 
Ages, 232; revolts and demands, 
233, 2343 revolt of the English, 
235; 

Penitentials, Theodosius, quoted, 
241. 

Perceforest on knightly hospitality, 
262. 

Period, Roman, resumé of reforms 
in, 106. 

Perjury, Charlemagne’s law con- 
cerning, 303, 304. 

Persecution, origin and cause, 441; 
of the Jews, 442; opposed to 
Christianity, 442 ; protests 
against, 443, 444. 

Person, love for a Divine, 38; 
Christianity embodied in a, 106. 

Peru and Japan, arbitration be- 
tween, 350. 

Pestilence, diminution of, 431, 432. 

Philosophers, the 18th century, 
387, 388. [397. 

Pinckney, General, on duelling, 

Piracy, 201. 

Places sacred from feuds, 139. 

Plato on unnatural vices, 37, 38. 

“Pledge of Peace,” the, 147. 

Pliny referred to, 73. 

Poictiers, council of, and private 
war, 148. 

Political economy, Christianity the 
basis of, 421. 

Popes, efforts in the cause of peace, 
150; and wager by battle, 168 ; 
and the ordeal, 175 ; learning en- 
couraged by, 222. 

Poor, number of Roman, 98; evils 
of free divorce among, 310: 


so 


INDEX. 


Christ the true friend of the, 
418, 419. 

Portalis on the citizen during war, 
341. 

Poverty, relief of, by Christians, 68 ; 
insurance against, 416, 417. 

Powers, neutral, during war, 345, 
346. 

Pravada, character of the, 140. 

‘Principles, Plato’s three, 37 ; ulti- 
mate issue of Christ’s, 45. 

Prison, early reforms of, 86, 87. 

Prison reforms the result of Chris- 
tianity, 400, 401. 

Prisons, old American, 
debtors’, 409. 

Prisoners, courtesy to, 259; chiv- 
alry and, 261; treatment of, in the 
Middle Ages, 325, 326; enslave- 
ment of, 327 ; treatment by non- 
Christian nations, 328 ; Grotius 
on the enslaving of, 331, 332. 

Privateering, Grotius on, 331, 335, 
336; history of European, 336- 
340 ; gradual abolition of, 341. 

Problem to work, a, 2. 

Property, Roman parents’ power 
over, 13,14; Roman woman and, 
19; in marriage, 20, 21 ; Christ 
and the distribution of, 93 ; 
industrial system of, 93, 943 
partnership in, 295, 296; pri- 
vate marine, 334, 340; Christian 
teaching respecting, 413, 414. 

Prostitution, problem of, 315, 316 ; 
safeguards against, 317-319. 

Protestant Church and slavery, 
the, 366. 

Proudhon quoted, 414, 415. 

Proverb, an old Roman, 25. 

Prussia and United States, treaty 
referred to, 337. 


401 ; 


491 


Prussian, code, divorce under, 305 ; 
ordinance about serfdom, 388. 
Purity, Christ and personal, 29 ; 
and the early Fathers, 30; duty 

of masculine, 317. 


Quakers, opponents to the slave 
tradé, 371-374: 


Race, degeneracy of the Roman, 
110, 111 ; a new one needed, 111, 
113 ; a barbarous, with Christi- 
anity, 112, 113. 

Races, treatment of inferior, 424- 
426 ; power of highly developed, 
471-4753. 

Rantzan, Count, and his serfs, 388. 

Rebels, treatment of by United 
States, 426. 

Reform, early prison, 86, 87 ; com- 
mencement of modern prison, 
399 ; result of Christianity, 400, 
401. 

Reforms, basis of modern legal, 35. 

Reforms, Justinian, 66. 

Religion, safeguard against vice, 
319 ; safeguard against intem- 
perance, 437, 438, 440; and 
science, 468. 

Religious laws, 211, 213. 

Renan quoted, 430. 

Revelation, a continuity of Divine, 


445, 446. 


‘Revenge, law substituted for, 207, 


208; curbed by Christianity, 
272. 

Rights, royal claims to wreckers’, 
199. 


Rig- Veda referred to, 448. 

Reprisals duriag war, 343. 

Robertson, Chef Justice, on mar- 
riage, 309. 


NG 


492 INDEX. 


Robinson, J., on persecution, 443. 
“Romance of the Rose” quoted, 
265. 
Roman, parental authority, 9= 

14; laws of succession, 15-18; 
woman, 19; the forms of mar- 
riage, 20; free matriage, 21 ; 
divorce, 23 ; unnatural vices, 36— 
40; slavery, 41, 47-50; gladia- 
torial games, 61-63; human 
sacrifices, 64; licentious shows, 
64; serfdom, 70; exposure of 
children, 72 ; law, 84, 160; pau- 
perism, 96, 97; collegia, 100; 
resumé of reforms, 106; torture, 
178, 
Romans and international law, 
332-334; persecution under, 441. 
Rome, Church of, and the African 
slave trade, 365, 366. 
“ Royal Truce,” the, 151. 
Rufus, King, cruelty of, 326. 
Rush, Dr., on the slave trade, 372. 
Russia, serfdom abolished in, 389. 
Russian code, character of an old, 


140. 


Sachsenspiegel, the German code, 
39- | 

Sakya-muni, legend Of, Ast 
defects in his teaching, 452. 

Salvian quoted, 68. 

Saxon kings, moral teaching of, 
208 ; laws against feuds, 2135; 50. 

Saxons, voluntary death of, 62. 

Scandinavia, abolition of slavery in, 


239. 


Schouler on marriage, 306. 

Schwabia, demands of the pea- 
sants of, 233, 234. 

Science, Christians the leaders in, 
218 ; and religion, 468. 

Scotland, torture in, 185 ; serfdom 
iny728 2, 

Sects, persecution among, 442. 

Seigneur and _ his ward, the, 131, 
ind 

Seneca and Roman parental power, 


Scandinavian woman, position of, 
122 hoa 

Sceptics and torture,g188. 

Schools, early Christian, 219, 220, 
222. 


10, Il; on’ divorce, -2390n 
woman, 24; and the exposure 
and mutilation of children, 73 
74. 

Serfdom, Roman law concerning, 
7°, 71; influence of Christianity 
upon, 107, 225, 228, 229 ; Roman, 
224. 

Serfdom, modern, 387; influences 
at work to abolish, 387, 388 ; 
royal ordinances against, 388 ; 
general abolition in Europe, 389, 
390. 

Serfdom in the Middle Ages, 228, 
232.5233: ; $ 

Serfs, English, 250, 252. 

Shipwrecked, cruelty to, 197 and 
mercantile communities, 198 ; 
efforts on behalf of the, 199 ; 
European legislation for, 200; 
humanity to, 200, 

Shoemaker, the torture of a poor, 
188. . 

Shows, Roman, licentious, 62; laws 
against, 65. 

Sidney, Sir 
wounded 
261. 

Sigismund, Emperor, proclamation 
of, 235, 

Slave, the Roman, 41 ; legal Siatus, 


Philip, and the 
soldier, referred to, 


~~ 


‘ee 
oA lee 


es 


—— Ss Fe | 


» a q 
i i ee Dd BN ee ee Oe 


INDE X. 493 


50; moral and social condition, 
[ns ie Pps hs Wolg fe cakea chy ae 

Slave-market, raising children for, 
Baa 

Slave, punishment for killing a, 244. 

Slavery, ancient and modern, 41 ; 
Christ silent on, 42, 43; influence 
on the Roman empire, 42; and 
Christianity, 45 ; Stoics and, 47: 
laws of Constantine on, 52-54 3 
laws of Justinian on, 55~58. 

Slavery in the Middle Ages, 226, 
238-240; gradual disappear- 
ance of, 363. 

‘Slavery in England, 241 ; eman- 
cipation from, 245-248 ; after 
the Norman Conquest, 249 ; 
and the Church councils, 249. 

Slavery, influence of Christianity 
upon, 278, 279. 

Slavery, in British colonies, 376 ; 
in the United States, 377 ; soph- 
isms regarding, 377-379 ; protest 
of religious bodies to, 379, 380 ; 
noble men opposed to, 381, 382 ; 
final struggle against, in America, 
384. 

Slave trade, forbidden in England, 
248, 249. 

Slavé trade, modern African, 364, 
368; licenses granted for, 367 ; 
religious opposition to, 371 ; 
opponents in Great Britain, 373; 
struggles for and abolition of, 
374-376. | 

Slaves, Roman, cruelty to, 47; 
number of Roman, 49, 50; duty 
of emancipating, 53 ; humanity 
towards, 54; gradual emanci- 
pation of, 58-60; mutilation of, 
forbidden, 67 ; ransomed by the 
Church, 68. 


Slaves, condition of, in the Middle 
Ages, 226; freeing, 227; Acts in 
favour sot, 227-2 decree.sorm tie 
council of Chalons, 228; forms 
of emancipation, 230. 

Slaves, number of, in England, 243 ; 
protection and emancipation of, 
245-248 ; motives for emanci- 
pation, 251. 

Slaves, introduction of negro, into 
Europe, 364 ; first cargoes, 307 ; 
number imported, 369, 370. 

Sleeplessness enforced, 181. 

Smith, Sir: T., on English wives, 
134; on appeal to battle, 171, 
172 ; on torture, 185 ; ““Common- 
wealth of England ” quoted, 251 ; 
quoted, 327: 

Socialism and Christianity, 414, 
415. 

Societies, ancient insurance, 99 ; 
American temperance, 436. 

Socicty, natural selection and, 473; 
Christianity and a perfect, 475, 
476. 

Soldiers, anecdotes of Christian, 89 ; 
early Christians not, 91. 

Soul, Christ’s object the renovation 
of, 43 ; God’s kingdom the human, 
43, 44. 

South Carolina, divorce in, 307, 


309: 
Southern States of America, slavery 
in, 383. 


Spain, and the ordeal, 176 ; torture 
in, 183, 184; chivalry in, 266. 
Spencers “Red Cross Knight” 
quoted, 257. 

St. Petersburgh, convention of, re- 
ferred: to 245% 

Stage, laws protecting women of 


the, 66, 67. 


494 INDEX. 


Statesmen, English, on appeal for 
murder, 172. 

Stoics, influence of, on Roman juris- 
prudence, 46; cruelty to slaves, 
47, 48, 55; and the exposure of 
children, 75. 

Stoicism, superficial character of, 
51; humane influence of, 106. 

Story, Judge, on marriage, 306. — 

Stranger, how regarded by the 
ancients, 190; humanity to, 191 ; 
Teutonic laws concerning, 191 ; 
Charlemagne and the, 12% 
King Alfred and the,193;Hun- 
garian law, 193; in France, 
103-1955 in America, aos. 
Saxon law concerning, 210; 
and Christianity, 275, 276. 

Strappado, the, 181. 

Succession, character of Roman, 
15; reforms under Christianity, 
16-18, 

Suffering, indifference of the Hindoo 
to (note), 447. 

Suffrage, woman and the, 296, 

Sunday, first laws concerning, 85, 
86 ; Saxon law concerning, 210 : 
blessings of, 410-412. 

Superstition, encouragement of, by 
the Church, 160, 161. 

Swearing, Saxon law against false, 
211: 

Svmmachus, the Saxon slaves of, 
62. 

Syriah woman, 459. 

System, property under the indus- 
trial, 93, 94. 


Tacitus, an incident of slavery from, 
47 ; referred to, 61. 

Tariff, continental exactions of, 420, 
421, 


Teaching, ultimate issue of Christ’s, 


45. 


Temperance, spread of, 435 ; Ameri- 


can societies, 436; in England, 
439. 

Territory, rights over heathen, 334; 
. disputes as to, 351. 

Teutonic tribes, woman VS ay 
marriage among, I21, 122, 

Theodolfus on founding schools, 
ZT, . 

Theodore, St., of Stude, and slavery, 
42, 59. 

Theodosian code referred to, 12. 

Theodosius, “Penitentials” of, quo- 
ted, 241. 

Theodosius, Emperor, persecuting 
laws of, 441. 

Tomb, inscription on a, 100, 

Total abstinence movement, 437. 

Torture, use of, opposed by the 


Church, 162, 185 ; under the Ro-- 


mans, 178; confession under, 179; 
and the inquisition, 180, 187; 
various forms of, 180; under the 
German code, 181; in France, 
182; in Spain, 183; in England, 
184; in Scotland, 185 ; causes of 
its spreading, 186 ; humanity op- 
posed to, 187 ; sceptics and, 188; 
abolition of, 188 ; latest incidents 
of, 188, 189 ; abolished by Chris- 
tianity, 274, 275 ; instruments of, 
406. 

Trajan, Emperor, gladiatorial show 
o', 61 ; supporter of orphan chil- 
dren, 99. 

Trent, council of, referred to, 220, 

“Truce of God,” the, rgz. 

Turks, results of the conquests of, 
Liay hig 

Tutelage, character of German, 120, 


- 


INDEX, 


121; of woman, 130, 131 ; abol- 
ished in France, 132. 
Twiss’ ‘ Laws of Nations ” quoted, 


341. 


United States, and privateering, 


337-339; slavery in, 377-386; 


duelling in, 396-398;  refor- 
matories in, 402-404; cruel 
punishments in, 407, 408 ; prisons, 
409 ; intemperance in, 434, 436; 
persecution, 444. 
Usus, the marriage called, 20, 21. 
Utrecht, treaty of, referred to, 368, 


369. 


Vaison, council of, on education, 
210. 

Valentinian and Roman laws of 
succession, 16; laws for protect- 
ing children, 79. 

Valois, count of, serfs freed by, 238. 

Velabrum, children exposed in the, 


74- 
Vessels, disputes concerning, 348- 


351. 

Vice, depth of Roman, 24; safe- 
guards against, 317-319. 

Vices, unnatural, 36 ; Plato on, 37, 
38; influence of Christianity on, 
39 ; the emperors and, 40. 

Victims, gladiatorial, 61, 62. 

Villeins, English, 250. 

Visigoths and the shipwrecked, 197. 


Wager by battle, 161-163 ; preva- 
lence of, 164 ; mode of, 165-167 ; 
forms of oaths, 165, 166; instances 
of, 167; Church opposes, 168 ; 
opposed by monarchs, 169, 170 ; 
slow abolition of, 171 ; in capital 
offences, 171, 172. 

~ Wallon on slavery, 41, 42. 


495 


War, Christ’s opposition to, $8; the 
early Fathers and, 89, 90. 

War, the citizen during, 341, 342; 
new codes of, 342 ; an abuse of, 
343 ;, reasons for restricting, 344; 
use of arms restricted in, 345 ; 
the great evil of history, 355. 

War, private, 142 ; in France, 143; 
eliects of, .144, .145 ;,efforts £0 
check, 147; curbed by Christianity, 
BID 73s 

Wars, peasant, 282; cost of modern, 
320, 321 

Wealth, distribution of, 104, 105 ; 
teaching of Jesus concerning, 
465, 460. 

Welsh, law respecting the, 215. 

West Gothic laws respecting serfs, 
228. 

West Indies, slavery in, 376, 377. 

Whipping, the punishment of, 408. 

Whittier, J. G., on slavery, 371. 

Widow, the protection of the, 131. 

Widows, laws concerning, 85. 

Wife, the Roman, 20-23 ; the Ger- 
man, 118-127; under English 
common law, 286, 290; the Ameri- 
Gani," 201, 293. 

Wives, reasons for repudiating, 25 ; 
German's power to sell, 122. 

Wihtraed, King, laws of, 208, 210. 

Wilson’s “ History of the Slave 
Power” quoted, 371, 372. 

Witchcraft, torture employed in, 
181. 

Witches, cruel treatment of, 176, 

Wladimir and the bishops, 140, 141. 

Woman under the Roman law, 19 ; 
as a mother, 19, 20 ; and divorce, 
23 ; degraded condition of, 24; 
depravity of, 24, 25; Stoic Paul's 
view of, 34. 


496 


Woman, under Christianity, 35, 36; 
under the Hindoo law, 35 ; influ- 
ence of Buddhism on the position 
of, 36 ; laws to protect Christian, 
65, 66; position influenced by 
Christianity, 107-109 ; 271, 272. 

Woman, in Teutonic tribes, 117, 
127; purity of, 118; tutelage of 
126,121; 130, 131 ; Scandinavian, 
123) . 

Woman, condition of, improved by 
Christianity, 133, 136; English 
law and, 134-136; legal emanci- 
pation of, 134; and chivalry, 257.. 

Woman, gradual elevation of, 283 ; 
modern position of, 285 ; under 


INDEX. 


English common law, 286-290 ; 

American legislation and, 291 ; 
leading to legal equality, 206; 
moral influence of, 297; social 
influence, 298 ; under agnosticism, 
299. 

Woman, position of, in India, 448- 
450; in China, 454 ; Syrian, 459; 
effects of tropical climate on, 461. 

Work, object of the present, 1, 2. 

Work, woman’s, in America, 297. 

Wounded, care of, during war, 344; 
result of religion, 345. 

Writers, Roman, on parental power, 
Io, I1 ; on divorce and the degra- 
dation of woman, 23-25. 


AG, Lube ine cal ule Lat “ee 
Re Ls sd mats #, yt My $ Ge bee 


a ‘ One deed cd: Ake a 


-" 


Cow to er Woon ool Case 
ihn’ dakdn ian Wa Lis isi vont 


Sa aa 


aC 
i 
Ad 
3 


rc 7 
é 
, 
"4 
‘ 
F. 
s 
‘ 
7 
. ‘ ¥ ae 
al ~ ee \ ' MA it 
4 
tere oy 
os 
aaa iy eS 
~ 
Low 
*\% 
¥ 7 
- 
5 
y 
= i 
j f 
, e i 
} 
- 
; v 
- 
A! ih, ! 
«ith 
5 
’ & 
: 
r 
i, P 
i we ’ 
4 wn ; 
“ f ' : 
= ‘ 
4% 
4 . 
lad j 
’ } i ; 5 
. af 4 a é ar ¢ Mi ¢ 
Sy / _ t ry ’ 
" l hie” be i Ff ee! ad i ea fae ee 


at 


NRA 


NN 


